Which pocket compact: Zeiss Victory 8x20 or Nikon LX L 8x21

[Kevin Purcell]

Which pocket compact of these two would you choose:

Zeiss Victory 8x20
Novel offset single hinge
Field of View 351 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 14mm
Close Focus 8.5 ft.
Weight 7.9 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 4.0 x 3.8 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

Nikon LX L 8x20
Double hinge
Field of View 356 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 15mm
Close Focus 7.8 ft.
Weight 9.5 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 3.7 x 4.2 in.
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

Specs are a rough wash but the Zeiss seems to have the smaller numbers which is less good except for weight. Most of the figures are very close.

I wear glasses.

Any comments on view, usage, and so on welcome.

[kabsetz]

Kevin,

For my comments, perhaps more extensive than you would care for, check the link below.

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

On this page, you find them towards the bottom under:

corrected reviews from number 1/2006 (PDF, 430 Kb)

I might add that I have since got myself the Ultravid 8x20, but for wearing glasses the Nikon might be better still.

Kimmo

P.s. I have heard that Alula as a magazine is perhaps going to end, so it is possible that these pages will go in the near future. As for this morning, though, they were still up.

[pinsonp2]

I wear glasses and the 8x20 LXL works for me. Even the focus knob at the wrong end works too....go figure.

[ThoLa]

Which pocket compact of these two would you choose:
Zeiss Victory 8x20
Nikon LX L 8x20
Any comments on view, usage, and so on welcome.

had the opportunity to try both types on 29 November.
Both are fine.
The Zeiss is probably the brightest in its class.
But the focusser is undersized and quite stiff because of the water-proofing.

The Nikon (actually a 10x25) was great. Very bright, clean image. Very sharp. Focusser (sorry, Zeiss) much better: easy, smooth, precise.

Personally I'd prefer the practically distorsion-free Nikon image, but that's obviously a matter of taste.

The hinges on the Nikon were too loose, though. IPD could change accidentally.

The broad bridge design of both felt superior to my hand to the rather narrow bridges of some other pocket binos (Leicas, Zeiss Conquest).

A worthy contender is the Swarovski 8x20. Neck to neck (nose to nose) with the Nikon in terms of ergonomics, image quality and ease of view.
The Nikon's more affordable over here.

Tom

[Surveyor]

Kevin;

I have attached a picture of a few of my compacts sorted by “box” volume size; max. Length times max. Height times max. Width.

I prefer the ergo’s of the Zeiss but the image of Nikon. I generally use the Zeiss more often than the Nikons, the size and the focus up front are just not for me.

Of the ones shown the little Zeiss IF on the left and the Ultravid get, by far, the most use. The Ultravid is just terrific but the Zeiss is so small that you can carry it without regard if you do not expect to need a bino. After all, the best bino is the one you have with you.

Best
Ron

PS. The Zeiss IF's would be useless for a glasses wearer.

[Alexis Powell]

For me, the handling properties of pocket roofs are as important as their optics. My favorite are the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. I also own the Zeiss 8x20 Victory, which in my opinion handles much better than the Nikon--I don't like the Nikon pinky focus. My original Zeiss unit (manufactured before the pocket Victory got dielectric coating) was excellent in comparison to many other pocket roofs, but in comparison to the Ultravid, it did suffer from the issues w/contrast that Kimmo described in his excellent Alula review. That unit was replaced by Zeiss for one of more recent manufacture (with dielectric coating), and I must say it is every bit the equal of my Ultravid in dealing with tricky lighting if not better (I don't know why--whether because of the different coating or some other improvement). I still like the Ultravid a bit better overall for the size of its focus knob, but the Zeiss is a very very close second (I like it better than all other top-end pocket roofs).

Kimmo,
It would be a shame if your optics reviews in Alula were no longer available on line. They are very useful, both for the reviews and as a model to others as to how to write an informative review. Is there any chance that these reviews, and for that matter, any of the reviews you've written since the 2006 pocket bino review will be retained/made available on the web?

--AP

[Surveyor]

Alexis;

My Victory's were bought when they first came out, so probably first generation. Do you have any idea of a serial number break, or other ID, of the later units?

Thanks,
Ron

[Alexis Powell]

Alexis;

My Victory's were bought when they first came out, so probably first generation. Do you have any idea of a serial number break, or other ID, of the later units?

Thanks,
Ron

I don't know off the top of my head, and I don't have any of my files w/me right now that might contain that info (or at least what year it was that the change was announced). One obvious difference in my units is that the newer one has the model name (Victory) molded in big lettering into the rubber armor on the bridge (From your photo, I can see that yours has the classier smooth styling of my original unit). I don't know that the change in bridge armor coincided with the coating change (I suspect that the armor change may have come later), and I don't even know if the change to dielectric explains the difference in performance between my units. Maybe Zeiss could provide serial number info.

--AP

[orbitaljump]

Compacts are hell.

I just picked up a pair of these to try out.

Sigma Armada 8x23 WaterProof (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-Waterproof-Armada-Series-8x23-WP-Binoculars_W0QQitemZ330289311773QQcmdZViewItemQQpt ZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item330289311773&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318)

7 degree FOV.

I dont care for the Ruby Coatings but I tried some of these out long ago and remember liking the uncramped view. I think I saw them at West Marine and have been looking for some ever since.....they may have been Kenkos though...kind of fuzzy. We'll see how it pans out.

[Tero]

Aha, the sigma lens people. But stay away from eBay unless you are selling. Bad place for binocuholics.

[denco@comcast.n]

Before you buy any compact binocular read this informative article on their limitations from Better View Desired. I much prefer the Nikon 8x20 LX L if you have to have a compact. An 8x32 is bigger but so much easier to use. Here is the link:

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-bvd.php

Dennis

[DHB]

At one time I owned the 8x20 Trinovids, Victory and Nikon LX. The LX and Victory were the best. I got used to the pinky focus on the Nikon (sort of). The view of the Nikon were slightly better to me. I sold all three of those eventually and this spring got a DEAL of the day on some Victory's and have used them quite a bit.

If I were doing it again I would compare the Nikon, Ultravid and the Zeiss. I think the view's are very comparable. Ergos would decide it.

Dave

[Kevin Conville]

This is a little like choosing between Hell* and Texas. |;|

The only one that (somewhat) floats my boat is brutally expensive, the Ultravid. Seven hundred bucks for a bino I'd prefer to not have to use ain't a'gonna happen!

If I had to have mini roof prism bins, and pay for them, I'd probably go with the Nikons and put up with the obnoxious pinky focus.

Personally, I use lowly Nikon 8x25 ProStaffs and you know, they're not that much larger and not too bad optically.
I sure like the eyecups and ergos much better than any of the aforementioned roofs.

* http://theeverymanblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/capitalizing-hell/

[Kevin Purcell]

Before you buy any compact binocular read this informative article on their limitations from Better View Desired. I much prefer the Nikon 8x20 LX L if you have to have a compact. An 8x32 is bigger but so much easier to use. Here is the link:

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-bvd.php

Dennis

Many thanks for all the responses. Very helpful!

So the either or is a little drive by both being available at good prices right now.

Dennis: I have read that one and I've contributed to several of the compact bin threads here (e.g. orbitaljump ... read the older threads!). I have a few 32mm bins but this is for an "always carry" bin (as Surveyor mentions).

Kimmo: Thanks for the review pointer I looked but I didn't think to look in that PDF.

Surveyor: what is the left-most bin in your photo? A Conquest?

More general questions:

Does the Nikon double hinge have a stop on the barrels. I find double hinge a lot easier to use if I open one tube to the stop then adjust the IPD with the other tube.

How have people found the ergonomics of the Victory both in the pocket (does that part of the hinge that sticks out a little cause problems) and setting IPD for a view.

A couple of comments mention the Nikon's "distortion free" view. Is the Victory "distortion full"? ;) What is the difference here?

Thanks in advance ...

[DHB]

I run the Victory's in a pocket of my safari type shorts and no problem. I find them to be pretty easy to put into quick action. The view is about as good as it gets in a pocket bino. Sharp as a tack really, just dim in low light but that's not what I use it for. Zoo trips, etc.

[orbitaljump]

e.g. orbitaljump ... read the older threads! --- Kevin Purcell

Im not quite sure what this means.

[ThoLa]

Does the Nikon double hinge have a stop on the barrels. I find double hinge a lot easier to use if I open one tube to the stop then adjust the IPD with the other tube.


Yes. Like the Ultravids.



A couple of comments mention the Nikon's "distortion free" view. Is the Victory "distortion full"? ;)

In comparison, yes. (The Swaro 8x20 is as good as the Nik in this respect!)

Tom

[Surveyor]

Surveyor: what is the left-most bin in your photo? A Conquest?
Thanks in advance ...

Kevin, they are the first compacts I bought, about the middle/latish 60's and no name that I am aware of. Sentimental favorites. They are 8x20 individual focus, which does not bother me because I can usually set the focus before I put them to my eyes, or I can focus almost as quickly as a CF (not hardly, maybe twice the time) from experience and technique. Worse problem is the eye lens is only about 10 mm diameter and recessed about 5 mm but they have a good diopter range, they will focus down around 2 meters. You can usually find them on e__y for $100 or less.

[Kevin Purcell]

Im not quite sure what this means.

Search for the many threads on compact bins in this forum. The good/cheap/lightweight issues have been discussed at length here.

Not all compacts are bad ... just the cheap ones.

[orbitaljump]

Oh, Im pretty up on things. I would never spend big bucks on a compact so havent looked through one till a couple of weeks ago.

Ive been using the Nikon Sportstar 8x25 8.2 degrees as a compact.

Cant stand narrow fovs.

[jjg213]

Hi Surveyor,
I am sure you know your binoculars, but, the pair on the extreme left in your photo look very much like the Zeiss 8x20 IF ones from the mid '60's. I have had several pairs, and on at least two of them, as the Zeiss name was merely painted on the smooth panel on the bridge, it had rubbed completely off through use. If they are Zeiss, you may be able to examine that area carefully for any trace of the name!
Regards, John

[Surveyor]

Hi Surveyor,
I am sure you know your binoculars, but, the pair on the extreme left in your photo look very much like the Zeiss 8x20 IF ones from the mid '60's. I have had several pairs, and on at least two of them, as the Zeiss name was merely painted on the smooth panel on the bridge, it had rubbed completely off through use. If they are Zeiss, you may be able to examine that area carefully for any trace of the name!
Regards, John

Sorry John, I thought I had mentioned they were Zeiss. I just meant there was no model name such as Conquest. You are right, without looking, the bridge is labled Zeiss 8x20 and either Germany or West Germany, not sure which.

Best
Ron

[Alexis Powell]

How have people found the ergonomics of the Victory both in the pocket (does that part of the hinge that sticks out a little cause problems) and setting IPD for a view.

I carry my pocket roofs in the case supplied by the manufacturer, so the slight differences in shape/dimensions are of no consequence. The cordura case for my Zeiss Victory is nearly identical in size to the leather clamshell case for my Leica Ultravid. Setting IPD on both of these is very comfortable. Also, they both hang flat against one's body (a very important issue for me) so the only reason I favor the Ultravid is for the larger focus knob. I do like the Zeiss focus, and I don't find mine to be too stiff, but anyone who prefers to focus with their left hand will not enjoy the enforced asymmetry that is right hand biased. As for distortion, I don't find it objectionable (i.e. I don't notice it in use). Swarovski is always improving their binos so maybe things are different now, but I've never been impressed with their pocket roofs (except back when they were competing against the Leica Trinovid and the predecessor of today's Zeiss Conquest), especially, as I recall, with respect to brightness and minimum close focus (for butterfly watching).

--AP

[ThoLa]

.... Swarovski is always improving their binos so maybe things are different now, but I've never been impressed with their pocket roofs (except back when they were competing against the Leica Trinovid and the predecessor of today's Zeiss Conquest), especially, as I recall, with respect to brightness and minimum close focus (for butterfly watching).
--AP

I have had the chance to try the Swaro 8x20 last week and the week before (3 different units), and I was very much impressed by their image quality as well as their overall quality - especially so, because of previous reports they may not be competitive anymore.
I was indeed thinking along the lines of some internal "brushing up" that might have taken place without much pomp and circumstance.

The image was in fact amazingly bright to me, given their size. Sharpness was at least as good as in a "made in Germany" instrument of the 40 mm class, and the contrast was clearly better.

They are monstrously expensive but I am tempted to give them the edge by a small margin (with the Nikon HGL neck to neck).

Tom

[Tero]

Have never seen the 8x Nikons, but the 8x Swaros are pretty comfortable to use. I did not spend a lot of time setting my eyes to them. Once I had them set, the view resembled a typical 8x32 of good mid price class.

Santa, I will take those, no problem.

[fugl]

I bought the Zeiss 8 x 20s a few years ago & regret having done so. They're optically OK--bright & sharp--but much too fiddly for my taste. I haven't had a chance to try other brands, but my guess is that a 2.5mm exit pupil is just too small for a satisfactory viewing experience, at least through binoculars & for me.

[Kevin Purcell]

FWIW, the Alula review link posted by Kimmo makes for very interesting reading.

Has me thinking about reverse porros again. Arrgghhh ;)

[Kevin Conville]

When considering compact (mini) binos, it's evident that one must place a very high value on ultimate compactness to want to go down the premium roof prism road.

A good reverse porro prism 8x25 will play on the same field (optically) with the previous mentioned roofs and will reward the user with much better ergonomics and a larger exit pupil at a fraction of the price.

In my case, Nikon ProStaffs have a larger diameter eyecup with a broader surface where it contacts your eye socket and this makes for a much more comfortable bin to use. It has a larger focus knob that's easier also. The shape of the ProStaffs (and other rev. porros) are a joy to hold both in your hand and to your face as compared to mini roofs.

I paid $118. for the ProStaffs. That's well less than 1/5 of what the Leica Ultravids cost in the US. For a bin that's primarily intended for keeping in the glove box, pack, purse, or other place as a "you never know" kind of optic, I know what makes sense to me.

FWIW, I've had three mini roofs including Leitz Trinovids that I used for 18 years. Though in their day they were probably the best available, the ProStaffs are superior in every way, except when folded for storage. I mention this as the layout is pretty much the same as current mini Leicas, though optically inferior.

[chartwell99]

A good reverse porro prism 8x25 will play on the same field (optically) with the previous mentioned roofs and will reward the user with much better ergonomics and a larger exit pupil at a fraction of the price.


Could not agree more. I bought a Vortex 8 x 26 Vanquish for less than $100 as a "leave in the car- take anywhere without worry" binocular and was so impressed with performance and ergonomics that I sold my Nikon 8 x 21 LXL within 2 weeks of first use. The Vortex is noticeably brighter, waterproof, less afflicted by CA, equally wide field and, since the Nikon is not a true pocket binocular, just as handy.

[Kevin Purcell]

Could not agree more. I bought a Vortex 8 x 26 Vanquish for less than $100 as a "leave in the car- take anywhere without worry" binocular and was so impressed with performance and ergonomics that I sold my Nikon 8 x 21 LXL within 2 weeks of first use. The Vortex is noticeably brighter, waterproof, less afflicted by CA, equally wide field and, since the Nikon is not a true pocket binocular, just as handy.

Wow, "forum telepathy" in action.

This was the "final hope" reverse porro that might make an alternative but no one has reviewed it ;) Along with the Bushnell Elite 7x26 Custom Compact Binocular which is good but not waterproof.

And recently I just got both a 6.5x and an 8.5x Papillo (and they're on sale at Cameraland for $90 now) which both have surprised me with their range of focus. The 6.5x is perhaps the ultimate "naturalist" bino for people interested in a range of animal wildlife from mammals and birds down through insects and even flora! So long as they don't go out in the rain much or bird for tool long: the depth of field is rather poor and there is a bit of a hazy view (not as good as most reverse porros I've seen).

So you don't see the "Nikon is not a true pocket binocular". Too big? Too heavy?

As Kevin McConville says it comes down to how much one values those last 3 or 4 oz and the "in a pants pocket without a big bulge" size. It does come at a price.

Thanks for the info.

[orbitaljump]

Whats the FOV of the Vortex Vanquish 8x26.....

Here is states 384, which is different from what Eagle optics says.

http://www.opticsale.com/vortex-vanquish-8x26-vnq-0826-compact-binoculars.html

It also states BK7 prisms.

[Kevin Purcell]

Always best to go to the source ...

http://vortexoptics.com/binoculars/view/vortex_vanquish_8x26

352 feet or 6.7 degrees FOV

And they don't mention BaK4 prisms so I presume they are BK7. Just narrows down the light cone, looses a little light at the edges and vignettes the edges of the beam.

Strange that they didn't decide to use BaK4 prisms though.

The Bushnell Legend 8x26 does and has a very, very nice view. FOV is rather narrow at 5.5 degrees and the bins are rather heavy at 14oz and a bit "brick shaped".

[chartwell99]

Wow, "forum telepathy" in action.

This was the "final hope" reverse porro that might make an alternative but no one has reviewed it ;)

So you don't see the "Nikon is not a true pocket binocular". Too big? Too heavy?

As Kevin McConville says it comes down to how much one values those last 3 or 4 oz and the "in a pants pocket without a big bulge" size. It does come at a price.

Thanks for the info.

Unlike the Leica Trinovid compacts which are pocketable, the folded Nikon in its (very nice leather) case is actually suprisingly bulky and unsuitable for almost all pockets. It does fit with effort into the side pockets of a Barbour, but the Vanquish does as well. The Nikon is probably marginally heavier than the Vortex but the weight of the Nikon was never an issue for me.

To another poster's comments, I think the Vortex/Eagle Optics website is accurate as to FOV as 352 feet at 1000 yards or so seems right, which is actually fairly wide for a compact and perfectly usable. I doubt the prisms are BK7 as the exit pupils show perfect circles and no vignetting.

[orbitaljump]

Thanks eveyone.

352ft is pretty good, especially for a compact.

At 384ft they would have had a sale with me though.

[Kevin Purcell]

I doubt the prisms are BK7 as the exit pupils show perfect circles and no vignetting.

That's the test for it.

Perhaps they changed after the marketing blurb was written.

[Alexis Powell]

I own several excellent reverse-porros, I've tried many others, and I can honestly say that I prefer the ergonomics and optics of my premium pocket roofs over any of them.

--AP

[Fireform]

I went with the 8x20 ultravids after years of carrying 10x25 Zeiss conquests, because they offer much better contrast and eye relief. However, zeisses are always far lighter than the leicas and the horizontal-riding pouch they come with is much better at getting binoculars into action quickly. I'm thinking of getting a zeiss pouch for my ultravids, actually (heresy, I know).

[orbitaljump]

Anybody a fan of the Canon 8x23A?

Reverse Porro
Aspheric lenses
Multi coated
9ozs
338ft

Not Waterproof

I remember looking at these long ago and being impressed. Are they made in Japan?