New Zeiss Victory FL binoculars

[Leif]

Zeiss have introduced a new line of top grade binoculars called Victory FL. There are 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42 models. Spec. wise they look good. Highlights seem to be low dispersion glass in the objectives, and a more conventional styling than the Victory II line. The 7x42 has an incredible FOV of 150m at 1km matching that of the older 7x42 Classic.

See here:

Zeiss Victory FL (http://www.optik-roesener.de/shop/index.html?zeiss_fernglaeser_victory_fl_-_neu!.htm)

Here is a machine translation of the advertising spiel from that site (the meaning is clear, though the machine translation is somewhat amusing - note the special 'priest Konig' prisms):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Beginning of delivery without obligation in May, 2004
Delivery of advance orders in the order of the order entrance.

The next development step in the far optics: Victory FL, the innovative binoculars which open new dimensions of the picture quality. Special objectives with Fluoridgläsern provide for the lowest color hemlines and high edge sharpness of the pictures which are also unmatched in resolution, contrast and color loyalty.

Besides, the new Victory FL are extremely light and compact - thanks to her completely anew calculated optics. The new construction method is noteworthy also: fiberglass-reinforced polyamide is combined here with magnesium elements. The result: a light, very robust case. The new mechanics provides for special ergonomics with a lot of thought-out detailed solutions. Who is content only with optical and engineering best performances, exactly his binoculars hold with a ZEISS Victory FL in the hands.

Victory 8 x 42 T*FL
The universal binoculars at unusual level. Concerning image quality and use use it persuades everybody which wants to lead efficient, handy and robust binoculars with itself.

Which luxurious technology is hidden inside of binoculars ZEISS, is not to be known outwardly. In the highest passport exactness the single components are joined and is adjusted precisely. Besides, the ZEISS Victory FL are extremely able of opposition in spite of her exact inner life. This push and impact resistant cases is natural wasser-and dust-thick as well as with nitrogen fullly. A permanent quality control protects the high standard and the long lifespan of your binoculars ZEISS.

High tech - hard in taking
With all optical Höchstleistung - binoculars are above all use goods which are used in free nature mostly under extremely adverse Bedinqunqen. Not only the excellent picture brilliance counts ornithologists, hunters and physical observers - for them all, they must can do also on the robustness of her binoculars vertassen. On account of in difficult area, with rain, snow or cold: on Victory FL of binoculars of Carl Zeiss is in every situation - optically like technically - 100% of reliance.

The innovative technology of the Victory FL in the overview:

New objective type Superachromat with Fluoridglas: optimum edge sharpness and lower color hemlines.

Anew calculated optics with consistent use of the advantages of the system ZEISS Advanced Optics: light and handy binoculars with excellent picture goodness.

The highest dusk achievement: phase-corrected priest König prisms and ZEISS T* Mehrschichtvergütung on all glass air surfaces inside for a phänomenale light transmission of more than 90%.

New lightweight construction: fiberglass-reinforced polyamide case with magnesium elements for maximum robustness and stability with extremely low weight (under 800 g).

New mechanics with a lot of thought-out detailed solutions: optimum ergonomics and pavement grip.

New glasses bearer wide corner eyepieces: incredible field of vision of 135 ms on 1,000 ms.

Ocular distance of 16 mms for 100% of clarity of the big field of vision.

Waterproof and dust-thick, full with nitrogen against covering the lenses inside with temperature variations.

[scampo]

Interesting, Leif - the pricing will be someting to look for. Easy to guess, though!

[Leif]

Interesting, Leif - the pricing will be someting to look for. Easy to guess, though!

About 1260 EURO compared with 1687 EURO for the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. So maybe ~£650 in the UK?

[scampo]

Now that seems interesting - and if it proves to be so, about time. The markets ready for a less expensive quality bino I reckon.

[dogfish]

About 1260 EURO compared with 1687 EURO for the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. So maybe ~£650 in the UK?


Surely they're not going to be cheaper than than the Victory IIs, unless they're going to replace them and Zeiss is going for a whole new pricing policy - ie, cheap. I'd assumed they would compete with the ELs and the Ultravids in the top price bracket.

Unless of course the rest of the world is going to get them cheaper than the UK, which would not be a first....

[pduxon]

flipping hell is £650 cheap? If they produce a top quality bin for this price the likes of Leica, Nikon and Swaro will be in for serious competition.

In a years time ......according to one birding magazine......

[Tim Allwood]

so they match the old Zeiss 7 x 42 for Field of View.....you couldn't want brighter bins than the old classics and the construction was first rate too

mmmm that's progress and well worth the outlay

[Blincodave]

A price of 1260 euros would suggest a price of £800 plus in the UK. I reckon they will withdraw the standard victories although I suppose both Leica and Swaro have retained the trins and SLCs within their range. If so, the standard victories would drop to a price in the £650 bracket. On the other hand, the Victory 11s don't appear to have taken off at all (whatever their merits) so their complete withdrawall must be a distinct possibility.

[iporali]

- Not to be taken too seriously -

I liked the look of previous Victories a lot more. This looks almost like a hybrid of Swaro EL & Leica Trinovid ;)
Well, it took some time to get used to the new Swarovskis...

Ilkka

[Swissboy]

I always wonder how some people get info quicker than others. If you enter "Zeiss" and "Victory FL" into Google's search-machine, it is only that Rösener web page that comes up. Zeiss themselves are notoriously slow to update their web page.

And then, how did you, Leif, find out about that Rösener info page?

[CDK]

I always wonder how some people get info quicker than others. If you enter "Zeiss" and "Victory FL" into Google's search-machine, it is only that Rösener web page that comes up. Zeiss themselves are notoriously slow to update their web page.
And then, how did you, Leif, find out about that Rösener info page?

I contacted Zeiss in the UK today after reading previous posts to ask about these new binoculars. It might explain why Zeiss have not updated their web site. I was told that they haven't even launched any new binoculars yet, and no prices are available.

[Ragna]

Zeiss were by far the most popular binoculars in the late 80s and early 90s,but the Night Owls were a total failure,The Victory series has'nt sold much better(although i think they are very under rated). So lets hope that this time Zeiss have got it right.Optically they are as good as anybody.

[gorank]

Looks a bit like a design synergy with the new "Conquest"-model. Much better ergonomics than the VII (difficult not to manage that..), will be very interesting to see what the FL:glass will do to the CA, that was quite disturbing in the "old" VII:s. This could be the binos that I have been waiting for...IF they are as good as the EL:s concering ergonomics/with eye glasses and optically better than the the Ultravids...and yet lighter...

[tonimaroni]

Hi,

under http://www.ehlert-partner.de/Zeiss.htm#ZEISS you find more details, eg the 8x42: weight: 755 g, focusing distance down to 2 m, field of view 135 m, price 1.450 EUR...

Regards,

Toni

[scampo]

Zeiss were by far the most popular binoculars in the late 80s and early 90s,but the Night Owls were a total failure,The Victory series has'nt sold much better(although i think they are very under rated). So lets hope that this time Zeiss have got it right.Optically they are as good as anybody.I can't think why Zeiss lost favour - it has to be down to marketing, I should think - if not theirs, then Leica's and Swaro's. Bill Oddie obviously had a better effect than I realised. Zeiss should have got David Bellamy or someone similar to show Bill a thing ot two - as you say, their bins were the best rated up to quite recently.

Similarly with the new diascope and a zoom that does what no other zoom really achieves - gives a wide FOV - yet, it doesn't tickle the mag reviewers' fancies - so obviously wrong as Alula and other well-regarded sites put it in top place. What gives, eh? Ah well - it's certainly put me off from buying those mags, that's for certain.

[Leif]

I can't think why Zeiss lost favour - it has to be dow to marketing, I should think - if not theirs, then Leica's and Swaro's. Bill Oddie obviously had a better effect than I realised. Zeiss should have got David Bellamy or someone similar to show Bill a thing ot two - as you say, their bins were the best rated up to quite recently.

Similarly with the new diascope and a zoom that does what no other zoom really achieves - gives a wide FOV - yet, it doesn't tickle the mag reviewers' fancies - so obviously wrong as Alula and other well-regarded sites put it in top place. What gives, eh? Ah well - it's certainly put me off from buying those mags, that's for certain.

Steve:

I can't speak for others, but in the past I was strongly influenced by Bill Oddie and his recommendation of Leica. He comes across as an educated likeable person, and hence when I used to read his "Simply the best" slogans, I used to believe it. In truth Oddie is presumable paid to promote Leica, so saying they are the best puts bread on his plate. In truth Leica optics are excellent, but not necessarily the best. The Ultravids are indeed innovative.

Swarovski have conquered the market - I think - by creating excellent products. The new Swaro 80 HD scope is optically excellent, the weight is low and the finish is quite superb. I don't think this is marketing. IMO the Swaro 80 HD scopes are considerably over-priced but most people seem to disagree.

Nikon are slowly gaining a following by dint of optical and mechanical quality. But I am sure that clever marketing would help.

Yes Zeiss seem to have suffered. I think they made some mistakes in the original Victory line. I tried them but did not put them on my short list due to the awful strap lugs though these have been changed. And yet they were very innovative: light, compact, decent optics, decent price. Odd. The Zeiss Diascopes have got some excellent reviews (despite the recent review from the Bird Watching muppets) and doubtless sell well in the many areas of the world.

[Rico]

Intriguing development, Lief. The Victory line is already supposed to be superachromatic (a Zeiss achievement), addressing chromatic aberration one step beyond apochromatic. PauI van Walree describes the levels of CA correction in http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html. The use of flourite lenses to correct CA would seem to be superfluous. Hmm.

Despite being a CZ fan and user of their photographic lenses, I remain entranced by the Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, particularly the packaging, and I would have a pair by now, except they're quite unavailable. The Victory I/II debacle and mixed reviews were certainly a turn-off for me.

[gorank]

Intriguing development, Lief. The Victory line is already supposed to be superachromatic (a Zeiss achievement), addressing chromatic aberration one step beyond apochromatic. PauI van Walree describes the levels of CA correction in http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html. The use of flourite lenses to correct CA would seem to be superfluous. Hmm.

Maybe an answer to why using fluorite glass...personally I believe that most of the top-binos today could be better according to chromatic abberation...including the present Victories...super achromat or not...

info is from the optics for birding homepage:
http://www.optics4birding.com/

//What are fluorite and low-dispersion glass?
Optics manufacturers use fluorite (CaF2) and low-dispersion (known by various trade names, e.g., ED) glass in the fabrication of the objectives (front lenses) of telescopes to reduce longitudinal chromatic aberration, which causes a purplish blur around high-contrast objects (such as stars or planets) when observed at high power, even when they are in the exact center of the field-of-view. This problem is different from the one that causes colored fringes around telephone lines, etc., near the edges of the field-of-view. This second problem is called chromatic difference of magnification, or lateral color, and is more the result of eyepiece design than of glass composition.

Theoretically, and contrary to some manufacturers' marketing literature, at the relatively low magnifications that birders use, the added benefit of fluorite glass is likely unnoticeable during periods of good light. However, Fisher presents some empirical results that suggest for the higher-powered scopes (60-70x), such glass may help. Furthermore, if you are birding in marginal conditions (dawn, dusk, and in the woods), fluorite glass can make a noticeable improvement.
//

[CDK]

Hi,

under http://www.ehlert-partner.de/Zeiss.htm#ZEISS you find more details, eg the 8x42: weight: 755 g, focusing distance down to 2 m, field of view 135 m, price 1.450 EUR...
Regards,
Toni

This would equate (GBP) to: 7x42 = £940, 8x42 = £973, 10x42 = £975. (currency convertor)
I see that the Euro price includes the German tax @ 16%.

A bit more than the £680 mentioned earlier. Perhaps the other site prices which Leif informed us of did not include tax.

[iporali]

personally I believe that most of the top-binos today could be better according to chromatic abberation...including the present Victories...super achromat or not...


I agree that CA-correction could indeed be better in any top-(roof-prism)-binos but I think you also gave the reason why it is not. The observed fringing in binos is usually "lateral color" (TCA), which is mainly caused by the *eyepiece*. When bino-makers try to maximise the field-of-view, eye-relief and minimise field curvature in the eyepiece - they end up using so much glass and such high angles of light rays (against lens surfaces) that they don't seem to be able to control transverse CA.

All solutions to reduce CA seem to concentrate on the objective, which does not offer the same advantage in low power (<10x) binoculars as in high-power spotting scopes. Therefore it would be nice to know whether using ED-glass in the eyepiece instead of objective would help (or is it used?). This could work economically even better with scopes, where the upgrade would not require the purchase of the whole setup and surely some of us would be willing to pay more for them.

The terms apochromat and superachromat are not very clearly defined. Some sources use a technical definition, which simply says that you use three lenses in APO and four lenses in superachromat - this definition, however, does not say anything about improved image quality. The other definition is how well CA-removal has succeeded - no matter how it is achieved; TeleVue is able to make fine APO-objectives with only two lenses.

As I have probably said earlier, Zeiss may call their 4-lens system technically a superachromat because in marketing it sounds even better than apochromat (like "one step further") - although in reality (correct me if I'm wrong) it may just be easier/cheaper to use four lenses vs. three (or even two) extremely good lenses. Anyway, it is really interesting to see if Zeiss have succeeded in reducing CA.

Ilkka

[Leif]

Hi Ilkka

I too think that all top end roof prism bins available today have more CA than is really acceptable. (Maybe this is the curse of having a Nordic name?)

I tried the Leica Ultravid 8x42 yesterday (looking at scopes at an RSPB reserve, and couldn't resist spending 10 minutes outside with a pair) and was struck by the small size and the rather large amount of CA even in dull conditions. It was so obvious but is never mentioned in reviews.

Regarding the Zeiss, I reckon we should wait and see. Minox produce some bins with ED elements, including a 10x58, and they are said to have excellent contrast. Incidentally the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT, an old design, have almost no CA. Not being an optical designer, it's hard to comment further.

[Swissboy]

I contacted Zeiss in the UK today after reading previous posts to ask about these new binoculars. It might explain why Zeiss have not updated their web site. I was told that they haven't even launched any new binoculars yet, and no prices are available.

That Rösener page does give both pictures and prices, though!

[Swissboy]

Hi,

under http://www.ehlert-partner.de/Zeiss.htm#ZEISS you find more details, eg the 8x42: weight: 755 g, focusing distance down to 2 m, field of view 135 m, price 1.450 EUR...

Regards,

Toni

OK, so here we even have them in colour, those new new binoculars that have "neither been launched nor priced". Very interesting, indeed.

[gorank]

Incidentally the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT, an old design, have almost no CA. Not being an optical designer, it's hard to comment further.

I have theory of old glass types (with arsenic and lead) being better concerning CA...new eco-glass is more environmental friendly...but...i hope i'm wrong...

Was the ones you tested new "classics" or older ones ??

In recent tests of Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 classics I could clearly see CA..of the longitudinal type, (purplish blur around high contrast details)

Anyway, I regret I sold my old 8x30 Zeiss BGAT, should have kept them just for the logo "made in West Germany" ...

[Leif]

I have theory of old glass types (with arsenic and lead) being better concerning CA...new eco-glass is more environmental friendly...but...i hope i'm wrong...

Was the ones you tested new "classics" or older ones ??

In recent tests of Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 classics I could clearly see CA..of the longitudinal type, (purplish blur around high contrast details)

Anyway, I regret I sold my old 8x30 Zeiss BGAT, should have kept them just for the logo "made in West Germany" ...

It was a recent 8x30 BGAT Classic though I have also tried a 30 year old version (no phase-coating) and they were very similar. Unlike most Zeiss roof prism bins which use Abbe-Koenig prisms, they use Schmidt-Pechan prisms.

I tend to think that the trend for lighter more compact binoculars is forcing designers to compromise colour correction for the sake of weight and size. But I might be wrong. (I seem to think colour correction in the Leica 8x42 Trinovid was reasonable.)

I'm not sure they are still made in Germany. Certainly Leica have moved some production facilities to Portugal and I heard that some Zeiss optics are made in Hungary.

[gunvald]

It was a recent 8x30 BGAT Classic though I have also tried a 30 year old version (no phase-coating) and they were very similar. Unlike most Zeiss roof prism bins which use Abbe-Koenig prisms, they use Schmidt-Pechan prisms.

I tend to think that the trend for lighter more compact binoculars is forcing designers to compromise colour correction for the sake of weight and size. But I might be wrong. (I seem to think colour correction in the Leica 8x42 Trinovid was reasonable.)

I'm not sure they are still made in Germany. Certainly Leica have moved some production facilities to Portugal and I heard that some Zeiss optics are made in Hungary.

The Zeiss Diafun binoculars are said to be made in Hungary which might also be true for the Conquest binoculars. I doubt that Zeiss will move the assembly line for the few Classics still in production, but who knows? The Conquests I tried had no "Made in ..." markings as I recall, which may mean a silent "Made in Hungary". That was the situation with the Japanese camera companies 20 years ago when they started to make lenses outside Japan. If a lens did not have a "Made in Japan" marking on it. it was made somewhere else. Perhaps there was a discrete "Taiwan" somewhere on the box or on a lens cover.

Concerning the B/GA 8x30, they are very compact and have still passed Leif's harsh and unforgiving CA test. Quite interesting pair of binoculars as a light weight pair.

[tlb]

The Zeiss Diafun binoculars are said to be made in Hungary which might also be true for the Conquest binoculars. I doubt that Zeiss will move the assembly line for the few Classics still in production, but who knows? The Conquests I tried had no "Made in ..." markings as I recall, which may mean a silent "Made in Hungary". That was the situation with the Japanese camera companies 20 years ago when they started to make lenses outside Japan. If a lens did not have a "Made in Japan" marking on it. it was made somewhere else. Perhaps there was a discrete "Taiwan" somewhere on the box or on a lens cover.

Concerning the B/GA 8x30, they are very compact and have still passed Leif's harsh and unforgiving CA test. Quite interesting pair of binoculars as a light weight pair.

I spoke to Zeiss USA a couple weeks ago with respect to place of manufacture for Conquest line and the answer was "Germany".

[Rico]

My 8x20 Victory Compact bins are made in Hungary. I use them in the daylight hours, and really enjoy their lighter weight and one-handed operation. With careful, tripod-mounted testing, I fail to detect any LCA or TCA (except when viewing off-axis). Of course, with a modest FOV of 117m, that is not unexpected. As noted elsewhere, the larger FOV of 135m and above make the designer's life much harder.

[gorank]

perhaps the first official Zeiss pressrelease on the new FL??
http://www.zeiss.de/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewTopNewsAllD/7F5B2D1582704098C1256E5B006064E6?OpenDocument

[gorank]

and more material in english:
http://www.iwa.info/main/dg1xb0w4/dg257w9p/page.html?pn.action=showpn&pn.siteid=8&pn.id=8d2e2698-c8b6-4092-880c-53eb9258368a&pn.lang=en&pn.resultcount=&pn.offset=&edb.count=2&edb.exhibitor=zeiss&edb.cpp=10&edb.sort=firma1&edb.offset=0&edb.exid=126023&edb.cmspage=dg257w9p&module=exhibitordatabase2

[gorank]

the press release material for the new FL binoculars sure promises a lot...."colour fringes are eliminated to such an extent that they are practically imperceptible to the observer in all light conditions. Faithful colour reproduction in brilliant, sharply focused images has attained optimum levels. "

[Swissboy]

the press release material for the new FL binoculars sure promises a lot...."colour fringes are eliminated to such an extent that they are practically imperceptible to the observer in all light conditions. Faithful colour reproduction in brilliant, sharply focused images has attained optimum levels. "

This all sounds very promising but, as I have said elsewhere, I've been "burned" by Zeiss before, having been among their earlier customers for their first Victories. So I'll let others judge first this time.

[dogfish]

This all sounds very promising but, as I have said elsewhere, I've been "burned" by Zeiss before, having been among their earlier customers for their first Victories. So I'll let others judge first this time.


A wise course. I think there's a lot to be said for not being first in the queue for a new model. My Swarovski 10x42s are just back after a five-week sojourn in Austria to have the 'dried-up' focusing fixed. I bought these soon after they came out in 1999; I believe this fault has since been rectified.

I also bought a MC1 zoom for my Nikon Fieldscope, and that was soon replaced by a Mk2 to correct the halo effect at low magnifications. Got stung there too.

Then again, I did buy a pair of Ultravids recently, risking early-model syndrome. No problems as yet.

But to return to the forthcoming Zeiss, I'm a bit sceptical too. I just wonder why the other top manufacturers aren't using flourite if it's a big step forward optically. It's not a new material.

Sean

[John Cantelo]

All very interesting, but can someone please enlighten me as to why Zeiss are calling these new bins 'Victory' albeit with 'FL' tagged on? The name was naff from the start and now has 'baggage' in the form of the mediocre performance (at the till if not in the field!) of the current Victory range. I'm not sure that they look quite as stylish as either the Swarovskis or the new Liecas, but if they crack it optically that won't be a huge hurdle,
John

[mak]

All very interesting, but can someone please enlighten me as to why Zeiss are calling these new bins 'Victory' albeit with 'FL' tagged on? The name was naff from the start and now has 'baggage' in the form of the mediocre performance (at the till if not in the field!) of the current Victory range. I'm not sure that they look quite as stylish as either the Swarovskis or the new Liecas, but if they crack it optically that won't be a huge hurdle,
John

John.
Interesting comment on the naming, and baggage, but maybe the powers that be, do not think the name is the problem. Mediocre performance, do you mean transmission, fov, close focus, etc etc and against what? They did receive a poor review in the UK I think that it came from Birdwatching, and this no doubt put a negative feel on things, before people had even tried them, Birdwatch were quite positive about them. BVD were fairly negative about them, but I now see that the changes made to the binocular has changed some opinion. CJW on this site seems to like them after purchasing a pair.

John / Swissboy
On design and feel, have you had a look at them, and how do they feel, are they well balanced? What about the optics?
But if the product is not available, how can we make any comments until we have tried them. Nearly everyone in past posts mentions the need to try binoculars, before buying them.

The new Victory FL models are Made in Germany.

[Leif]

But to return to the forthcoming Zeiss, I'm a bit sceptical too. I just wonder why the other top manufacturers aren't using flourite if it's a big step forward optically. It's not a new material.
Sean

Dielectric coatings were around for decades before they were applied to binoculars. I think the Swarovski EL range were the first binoculars to have dielectric coatings - Swarobright - applied to prisms to increase contrast and brightness. (Or at least the first company to mention such things. Nikon might have been doing the same.) It took Leica many years to introduce binoculars with dielectric coatings i.e. the Ultravid range. Such coatings add cost, which is presumably why they were not used earlier. Manufacturers correctly predicted that the market would support even sillier prices.

Back to flourite optics. Flourite (or flourite glass) is expensive and increases manufacturing costs as it is harder to work than standard glass (it is softer). So increased costs is the obvious reason why manufacturers have not used it before. What it does is give improved correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations. Bear in mind that a binocular has objectives with an F number of ~4 according to some sources. In some top name instruments CA is so severe that to my eyes it interferes with observation, rendering a bird as a smear of purple. If the Zeiss Victory FL range do have greatly reduced CA (and maybe improved sharpness?) and are otherwise top grade, then IMO they will be a big advance. Whether or not the market as a whole agrees is another matter.

Incidentally most people claim not to see CA through top end binoculars such as the Swaro EL and Leica Ultravid. Goodness knows why!

Incidentally the current Zeiss Victory range are reckoned by most people to have excellent optics.

[gorank]

All very interesting, but can someone please enlighten me as to why Zeiss are calling these new bins 'Victory' albeit with 'FL' tagged on? The name was naff from the start and now has 'baggage' in the form of the mediocre performance (at the till if not in the field!) of the current Victory range. I'm not sure that they look quite as stylish as either the Swarovskis or the new Liecas, but if they crack it optically that won't be a huge hurdle,
John

I believe that the "AOS"- binos design came with the Victory models, maybe thats why the hold on to the victory-name...I dont know really...new binos - new name... but germans hold on to tradition...

But I cant agree when you say that the last victory bins has "mediocre" performance...the VII are not bad at all...i couldt get used to the "look and feel" though..

Nevertheless i think that Zeiss has learnt a lot from the first line of Vitory bins...you can even read it in the press release...

when it comes to the design..well...tastes differ...the swaro EL:s..are well...ehh...green....=)...the ultravids are...well..green or black...at least...but very anonymous...except from the red dot...the leica Trinovids were a good example of anti-design...=)

The new FL:s could be as classic as the Dialyts...low-voiced but distinct design...

[scampo]

I'd agree with Gorank regarding the lack of 'character' in the design of both Swaro and Leica - too smooth looking, maybe?

[Leif]

I believe that the "AOS"- binos design came with the Victory models, maybe thats why the hold on to the victory-name...I dont know really...new binos - new name... but germans hold on to tradition...


LOL

Victory. Conquest. What next? Domination? Annexation? Anschluss? 3:-)

Zeiss have always had odd names for optical products: Dialyt binoculars; Protar, Planar, Tessar, Sonnar lenses. They must spend a fortune on research and then ask someone on overly strong medication to come up with the name.

The Trinovid and Ultravid names are just as stupid though ...

[gorank]

LOL

Victory. Conquest. What next? Domination? Annexation? Anschluss? 3:-)

Zeiss have always had odd names for optical products: Dialyt binoculars; Protar, Planar, Tessar, Sonnar lenses. They must spend a fortune on research and then ask someone on overly strong medication to come up with the name.

The Trinovid and Ultravid names are just as stupid though ...

LOL..

..."Domination"...very good name...
but Victory FL is slightly better than "Domination"...=)
or Victory EU to be more PC...

the german names sure are very odd...expecially if you pronounce them in english..=)

long day in the field today...is my excuse...

[scampo]

As a keen photographer sinced a lad, I have always loved those names - I used to aspire to a Sonnar f1.8, the next one up from Tessar f2.8!

[Adey Baker]

As a keen photographer sinced a lad, I have always loved those names - I used to aspire to a Sonnar 1.8, the next one up from Tessar 2.8!

I used to have a Summicron (35mm), but that's a different story - it had to go, along with the M4 behind it, when I got married!

[scampo]

Just think what it would be worth now, Adey. And what beautiful photos it would still take.

There's a super camera shop in Loughborough (Paul Moffat's Cameras on Baxter Gate, from where I bought my first 'real' camera when I was 14), they seem to specialise in old Leitz-Wetzlar kit - what beautiful cameras and lenses they are.

[Adey Baker]

Just think what it would be worth now, Adey. And what beautiful photos it would still take.

There's a super camera shop in Loughborough (Paul Moffat's Cameras on Baxter Gate, from where I bought my first 'real' camera when I was 14), they seem to specialise in old Leitz-Wetzlar kit - what beautiful cameras and lenses they are.

I made a decent profit on it at the time, which was more useful then than yet another camera around the house!

I don't like to think what it might be worth now - the M4 was a limited edition 50th anniversary version, the last of the M4s to be made in Wetzlar. When they stopped production of the un-loved M5 they made the modified M4-2 in Canada.

The Summicron was made in Canada, and although it had the classic 'plasticity' of typical Leica lenses, it was prone to flare into the light! This was before Leica 'bit the bullet' and applied multi-coating to all their lenses to avoid flare problems - apparently the simpler coatings made the colour transmission of their lenses similar across the whole range.

As I've got the optical tele-attachment for my scope I can still do a bit of 'Leica-photography' of a sort!

[scampo]

I see why you bought a Leica scope, now, Adey! Pretensions of grandeur, eh? Oh to be rich!

:-)

[laika]

Dielectric coatings were around for decades before they were applied to binoculars. I think the Swarovski EL range were the first binoculars to have dielectric coatings - Swarobright - applied to prisms to increase contrast and brightness. (Or at least the first company to mention such things. Nikon might have been doing the same.) It took Leica many years to introduce binoculars with dielectric coatings i.e. the Ultravid range. Such coatings add cost, which is presumably why they were not used earlier. Manufacturers correctly predicted that the market would support even sillier prices.

Back to flourite optics. Flourite (or flourite glass) is expensive and increases manufacturing costs as it is harder to work than standard glass (it is softer). So increased costs is the obvious reason why manufacturers have not used it before. What it does is give improved correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations. Bear in mind that a binocular has objectives with an F number of ~4 according to some sources. In some top name instruments CA is so severe that to my eyes it interferes with observation, rendering a bird as a smear of purple. If the Zeiss Victory FL range do have greatly reduced CA (and maybe improved sharpness?) and are otherwise top grade, then IMO they will be a big advance. Whether or not the market as a whole agrees is another matter.

Incidentally most people claim not to see CA through top end binoculars such as the Swaro EL and Leica Ultravid. Goodness knows why!

Incidentally the current Zeiss Victory range are reckoned by most people to have excellent optics.

Leif!
What do you mean by dielectric? Is the same as laser? English is not my native language!
My Fujinon binocular has something called EBC or electron beam coating,i wonder if that is a sort of dielectric coating?

[Adey Baker]

I see why you bought a Leica scope, now, Adey! Pretensions of grandeur, eh? Oh to be rich!

:-)

'Posing' more like - Although hiding it inside a Skua case kind of defeats this object!

And buying lots of expensive optical kit is one way of making sure I'll never be rich!

[scampo]

It's true, Adey - but looking at that r-r swallow this past few days, I've felt very pleased to be looking through a decent scope. What a grand hobby - saw two close s-e owls this evening at Cossington North GP - wonderful, indeed.

[Adey Baker]

A 'decent scope' is key to the whole experience, isn't it?

Some of the debates on the various threads on colour casts, CA, fov, etc., just wouldn't have been relevant when I first started birding!

I remember looking through the then popular scopes such as Nickel Supra and Hertel and Reuss Televari and wondering how the hell people could claim to see primary projections, tertial edging and the like when I had a job even seeing the bird clearly!

Either they had much better eyes than I did or they were damned good 'blaggers!'

All of today's scopes are excellent by comparison - it's only a matter of degree!

Oh dear, this thread's supposed to be about Zeiss bins! - well I hope the new ones are as good as they promise to be so they're back up there with the best. If the new scope's anything to go by then I'm sure they will be!

[Swissboy]

Incidentally the current Zeiss Victory range are reckoned by most people to have excellent optics.

I agree on the excellence of the current Zeiss Victory, except that my type 1 suffers from the well known glare problem under certain conditions. And I'd hate to run into a similar problem once more. As for the Leica Ultravids, their optics are essentially the same as in the previous models, except for the coating. One would then expect less basic flaws than in a completely new model.

One thing that keeps puzzling me about Zeiss; I seem to remember that when the original Zeiss Victories came out, Zeiss claimed that its optics were as good as fluorite glass. Meanwhile, they issued telescopes with fluorite glass, and now the same happens with the binoculars. I'm thus very curious about the claimed improvements. Or else, the original claim must have been full of bull?

[mak]

I seem to remember that when the original Zeiss Victories came out, Zeiss claimed that its optics were as good as fluorite glass.Or else, the original claim must have been full of bull?

Swissboy, do you have the claim from Zeiss about the Victory optics being as good as fluorite?

[Swissboy]

I'd agree with Gorank regarding the lack of 'character' in the design of both Swaro and Leica - too smooth looking, maybe?

I'd rather have a pair without "character" than one that does not feel right, as is the case with the Leica Trinovids. (And my attempt to file off some of those bothersome ribs has not really helped much either. Except that those binoculars now really do have some "character", albeit an even worse look.)

[Leif]

Leif!
What do you mean by dielectric? Is the same as laser? English is not my native language!
My Fujinon binocular has something called EBC or electron beam coating,i wonder if that is a sort of dielectric coating?

Some people would say that English is not my native language either. Anyway, a dielectric coating consists of several layers of so-called dielectric materials. By appropriate choice of layers, the designer can create a mirror surface with a high reflectance across a wide range of frequencies. The thickness of each layer is important. Each layer is very thin: a value I saw was ~1/4 of the wavelength of light. The materials are typically simple metallic compounds such as MgF2. I believe that Swarobright (Swarovski) and HiLux (Leica) are both dielectric coatings. Traditionally roof prism binoculars would use metal coatings e.g. silver.

Incidentally, I think that anti-reflection coatings applied to lens elements work on the same principles, using the same materials, but in that case the aim is to prevent reflection!

I don't know about your Fujinon binoculars but I suspect EBC is indeed Fujinon's version of dielectric coatings. They probably have a special way of making them (using an electron beam?).

As Henry said elsewhere, it can be quite hard to peel away the marketing spiel and work out what manufacturers are doing, and why!

[Swissboy]

Swissboy, do you have the claim from Zeiss about the Victory optics being as good as fluorite?

As I said I SEEM to remember. When I was in for an additional pair of binoculars I searched around in the internet so much that it is impossible for me to say whether the claim really came from Zeiss. And that one printed (in German) Zeiss publication I still have does not make such a claim.

[scampo]

Aren't most marketing claims spurious or hyperbolic? What happens once a marketing department gets a hold of a product and converts its objective technical details into hype is often quite extraordinary - the technical wizards beavering away behind the scenes must look on in wonderment that they can get away with it.

[iporali]

As I said I SEEM to remember. When I was in for an additional pair of binoculars I searched around in the internet so much that it is impossible for me to say whether the claim really came from Zeiss. And that one printed (in German) Zeiss publication I still have does not make such a claim.

As has been said earlier, even the present Victories are claimed by Zeiss to be "four element superachromats". I don't know how this could be made without some kind of low dispersion glass - which someone may well call "as good as fluorite". At least this is something that eg. Swaro and Nikon (who use HD, ED-glass) would like us to think with their scopes (Zeiss, Leica and Kowa use "real" fluorite crystals).

Ilkka

[Leif]

As has been said earlier, even the present Victories are claimed by Zeiss to be "four element superachromats". I don't know how this could be made without some kind of low dispersion glass - which someone may well call "as good as fluorite". At least this is something that eg. Swaro and Nikon (who use HD, ED-glass) would like us to think with their scopes (Zeiss, Leica and Kowa use "real" fluorite crystals).

Ilkka

Ilkka: A very good point and that struck me too. Quite how they can be super-achromats is beyond me. All reports suggest that they are no worse and no better than competing products in terms of CA. (Or maybe they do use low-dispersion glass? Sounds unlikely since Zeiss make no song or dance.)

(The definitions of apo-chromat and super-achromat are somewhat elastic, and some manufacturers simply take them to mean an objective with 3 or 4 elements one of which is low dispersion glass. Others use a more strict definition in terms of the image quality.)

[mak]

Ilkka: A very good point and that struck me too. Quite how they can be super-achromats is beyond me. All reports suggest that they are no worse and no better than competing products in terms of CA. (Or maybe they do use low-dispersion glass? Sounds unlikely since Zeiss make no song or dance.)

(The definitions of apo-chromat and super-achromat are somewhat elastic, and some manufacturers simply take them to mean an objective with 3 or 4 elements one of which is low dispersion glass. Others use a more strict definition in terms of the image quality.)

I think that Zeiss and other manufacturers now use glass types that no longer contains lead or arsenic, but give a similar optical performance as the previous glass types. The Victory FL has the advantages of the AOS system, but also utilised lenses containing fluorine ions, along with special lenses with abnormal partial dispersion.

[Rico]

Coming from a photo background, CA (false color) drives me nuts. That Leif considers the Ultravid to have objectionable CA is distressing since it was the top bin on my purchase list. The only reason I don't already own the 8x42 BL is the complete absence of product on these shores.

With this announcement from Zeiss, I will now move my bet to the new horse. While Leica still gets my vote for a beautiful, all-Mg case and leather trim, one must focus on the central aspect, viz optical quality. At least the FL appears to have a proper design for strap attachment: that rivetted lug on the V2 was plain embarrassing.

[Ragna]

Rico you should look through the Ultravid your self. I have a pair and consider the image superb and can see no CA.

[gorank]

I had a first look at the Victory FL:s (8x42 and 7x42 models) at the Swedish Oudoor Fair today. This is my first impression from an hour of indoor-testing so take it from that.

The demo bins were a bit ”preproduction” according to the zeiss people and the twist up eye cups had a ”cheap plastic” feel and they were going to be changed.

The production country of the FL:s is clearly Germany and ”made in germany” is printed on the very slim bridge that holds the two barrels together. The shape of the barrels are a bit ”EL”-like and the balance was pretty good but not on pair with the EL:s. The feel fo the FL:s are a bit like a hybrid of Leica trinovid and Swarovski EL so they are not as slender and compact as the Ultravids.

The view is clearly related to the ”zeiss victory II” and the brightness is excellent. I could see very little CA at the edges of the field but indoor testing is not conclusive for color parameters but as I also tested Nikon SE:s, Swarovski EL:s and Leica Ultravids I got references for comparison.

Close focus is very good for the FL:s and and I had no problems focusing on objects only 1,5 meter away. The focus wheel is high-geared (one turn from near to far), wide and feels very natural and easy to use, but it is a bit stiff for my taste (the stiffness were, as the eye cups, on the todo-better-list).

Eye relief is on pair with the Leica Ultravids and eye comfort is very similar with these, perhaps even a bit better.

The 7x:s has an amazing 150 FOV and are sharper than the Dialyt 7x42 BGATP. The view is very easy on the eye for the 7x FL (so are the ultravid 7x). (The classic 7x42 Dialyt will be taken out of production in just a couple of month according to Zeiss.)

I think the FL:s looks rather promising and I look forward to test the fully developed product. I don’t think that they will be the optimal binoculars concerning all parameters but they may be a very good compromise with the image quality as their strongest aspect.

[Leif]

Gorank: They sound promising. Regarding the focus wheel, it is not uncommon for the focus wheel of a scope/binocular to be stiff when fresh out of the box. As far as I know they always loosen up, though it can mean a few annoying weeks or months while it does so.

It sounds like the 'Made in Germany' badge is meant to be seen!

Any indication of the price? I would expect them to be expensive.

[gorank]

Gorank: They sound promising. Regarding the focus wheel, it is not uncommon for the focus wheel of a scope/binocular to be stiff when fresh out of the box. As far as I know they always loosen up, though it can mean a few annoying weeks or months while it does so.

It sounds like the 'Made in Germany' badge is meant to be seen!

Any indication of the price? I would expect them to be expensive.

Here in Sweden the price will be on the same level as for the Swarovski EL (the EL:s are the most expensive here),
around 1020 GBP
I dont know what that will be in UK, with taxes and stuff..we have 25% VAT...=(

[mak]

No doubt the models that you saw Gorank were pre production, especially if they are the same as shown at the recent IWA show in Germany. Visitors to the show were also told about the eyepieces being pre production. I have been told that they intend to have the finished models available in May / June. Did you notice the 4 settings on the eyepieces, and do you feel that this was a good thing?
Can you explain the optimal parameters, and where will it be less than say the other two that you mention.

[henry link]

Gorank, What was your impression of the sharpness at the edge of the field? Henry

[gorank]

Gorank, What was your impression of the sharpness at the edge of the field? Henry

Since it was preproduction bins, it may not be useful to dig to deep into the optical quality....lets give Zeiss a chance...before melting their plastic bins with our merciless criticism...=)

[gorank]

No doubt the models that you saw Gorank were pre production, especially if they are the same as shown at the recent IWA show in Germany. Visitors to the show were also told about the eyepieces being pre production. I have been told that they intend to have the finished models available in May / June. Did you notice the 4 settings on the eyepieces, and do you feel that this was a good thing?
Can you explain the optimal parameters, and where will it be less than say the other two that you mention.

I noticed the 4 steps...click click click...crack..
one eye cup on the 10x42 model had unfortunately stuck on the higher level..so i couldnt test them with glasses...bad thing...

The question is if the final FL:s "feel" will be on pair with the optical quality..

BTW the rumor of new lighter Nikon roofs coming this summer was heard again from the Nikon people: "...we know nothing...but...new lighter roofs are to be released this summer...no specs yet.."

[pburgers]

Rico
I purchased the 8x42 Utravid BR, and I love them. I would recommend that you try them before writing them off. I got mine from Cameraland in NY via their website, and they set me back 1215.00 including shipping to SD. This was a full 100.00 cheaper than I could find them anywhere else on the web, and the local Leica dealer was @1500.00! I notice no CA with mine, the close focus is around 8', which is substantially less than Leica's published spec. As with any top end optic, of course the final choice is what works best for you, regardless of anyone else's opinion. I would urge you to give them a look.
Paul Burgers
Sioux Falls, SD

[pburgers]

One other thing-
The strap that came with the Ultravids is hands down the best I have seen or used.

[mak]

Since it was preproduction bins, it may not be useful to dig to deep into the optical quality....lets give Zeiss a chance...before melting their plastic bins with our merciless criticism...=)

Quite. Plastic ! this must be put into context, as according to the Zeiss blurb, the body is made of 60% glass fibre polymide (same as used on aircraft, perhaps we have a pilot or two who can confirm this). It is apparently more resistant to knocks than either ally or magnesium.

[henry link]

There is a downloadable brochure for the new Zeiss bins at the Danish Zeiss site. It includes a cutaway diagram showing changes in the objective and eyepiece designs from the current Victories, specs and available accessories.

http://www.zeiss.dk/frame.asp?home_id=2&page_id=&substring=

[gorank]

interesting material, is there any good cross section picture of the current Victory??

[henry link]

interesting material, is there any good cross section picture of the current Victory??

I don't know of one available online. I have one in a Zeiss brochure. It shows a 3 element objective in the current Victories with a cemented doublet and a singlet, but in a 2-1 arrangement rather than the 1-2 shown for the new bins.

Eyepieces are similar, 5 elements in three groups (2-2-1). In the new bin only the field lens doublet looks significantly different from the old one. It's thicker and has a deeper convex curve on the front surface. Of course, glass types might be different which wouldn't show in a cross section.

[smallwheelsman]

I have been in touch today with Zeiss UK and received the following information about these new models.

These new models will replace the current 8x40BT & 10x40 BT Victory as
well as the 7x42 BGAT Dialyt.

At the moment there are only pre production models to show."

Prototype models will be shown at Minsmere this weekend, a show in conjunction with Viking Optical and RSPB.

Price and release date in the UK are yet to be confirmed.

[michaelboustead]

I have been in touch today with Zeiss UK and received the following information about these new models.

These new models will replace the current 8x40BT & 10x40 BT Victory as
well as the 7x42 BGAT Dialyt.

At the moment there are only pre production models to show."

Prototype models will be shown at Minsmere this weekend, a show in conjunction with Viking Optical and RSPB.

Price and release date in the UK are yet to be confirmed.

Seems that Zeiss has given up on the old Victory design. Kind of surprising given its age.

[Leif]

Seems that Zeiss has given up on the old Victory design. Kind of surprising given its age.

I suspect they didn't receive quite the level of acclaim that Zeiss thought they deserved. Or the sales?

[CDK]

Minsmere Bird Fair last weekend. Had a look at the new Zeiss FL bins. Only samples, apparently the eyepieces were not the finished thing.

Had a look at the 7x, 8x. Close Focus was less than 2m (well it appeared to be lower than the 2m). 1 turn on the focus wheel from far to near. Good depth of field. I could not detect any CA, especially when looking at posts or the marquee guide ropes. All 3 models have the same prism as the 7x42 Dialyts, which gives a light transmission of over 90% according to the Zeiss man.
They are longer than the Ultravid, but lighter. Will come with a nylon case, with strap (can't remember the name of the case material), rainguard, objective lens covers and wide strap. IMO as good as EL's or the Ultravids. No price available.

[mike60]

They better be absolutely perfect in every way, because the other superb contenders to be my next full size roofs (swaro 8,5x42 and leica 8x42) just arent perfect enough :-)

[zurtfox]

Scouting around the web yesterday, I found the following site which, for the first time I have seen, gives a datefor the FLs:

http://worldtwitch.com/optics.htm

June 04! So I rang Zeiss UK bino dept and the response I got was that they had no firm date but probably would be available "in the next month or so". Do you think they know something and are not telling us yet?

[Andy Bright]

I tested out the three new Zeiss FL binos last week and my view of them is close to that of Gorank... the 7x42 was spectacular imho, f.o.v. amazing. The CA levels on the 3 binos were less than any other binos I've used (tested outdoors in sunny conditions), way better than my current Swaro 10x42 EL's. Close focus was impressive, all managing under 2m....not many binos allow me to focus on my shoes!
They felt better in my hands than the Victories, the finish being harder and less prone to attracting fluff. The ribbing on the body allowing a good grip of the bino.

[tlb]

I tested out the three new Zeiss FL binos last week and my view of them is close to that of Gorank... the 7x42 was spectacular imho, f.o.v. amazing. The CA levels on the 3 binos were less than any other binos I've used (tested outdoors in sunny conditions), way better than my current Swaro 10x42 EL's. Close focus was impressive, all managing under 2m....not many binos allow me to focus on my shoes!
They felt better in my hands than the Victories, the finish being harder and less prone to attracting fluff. The ribbing on the body allowing a good grip of the bino.

Andy,

Thanks for the insights. Were the examples you tested still pre-production units?

Tony

[Andy Bright]

Andy,

Thanks for the insights. Were the examples you tested still pre-production units?

Tony
Yes they were pre-production but I think optically they were the finished item, it was only the eyecups that were temporary on these binos. I think some spectacle wearers will appreciate the new design of the eyecups...having 4 or so stop positions instead of the usual all the way out or all the way in design.
Regards,
Andy

[zurtfox]

The FLs 'sound' almost too good to be true. My only concern is the main body construction material - glass reinforced polycarbonate - how does this compare with alloys or magnesium in terms of durability?

[trealawboy]

The FLs 'sound' almost too good to be true. My only concern is the main body construction material - glass reinforced polycarbonate - how does this compare with alloys or magnesium in terms of durability?

I had a look at a pair of Zeiss Conquest on Saturday. Okay they are not the forthcoming Victory FL, but I found the body to be thoroughly disappointing, with cheap and nasty eyecups. I sincerely hope the Victory FL are substantially better.

[gorank]

http://forum.astronomie.de/phpapps/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Fernglaeser&Number=168808&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

interesting FL-comparison with EL and Ultravid...in german but the result table is pretty easy to understand

[gorank]

try babelfish at www.altavista.com to translate the german link..

it helps a bit.. maybe... FL is translated as "flat steel bar"...=)

[Andy Bright]

I did a translation and it's pretty clear that this guy is very impressed, seemingly rating these binos above the competition in almost all areas.

[Swissboy]

try babelfish at www.altavista.com to translate the german link..

it helps a bit.. maybe... FL is translated as "flat steel bar"...=)

Well, the essence is in that brief paragraph in the center of the first contribution.

> means better than
Bildschärfe = sharpness
Kontrast = contrast
Bildhelligkeit = brightness
Farbtreue = trueness of colours
Freiheit von Farbsäumen = absence of CA
Reflexfreiheit = absence of glare
Randschärfe = edge sharpness
Gewicht = weight

Hope this helps a bit more.

[marcus]

:clap: and more material in english:
http://www.iwa.info/main/dg1xb0w4/dg257w9p/page.html?
pn.action=showpn&pn.siteid=8&pn.id=8d2e2698-c8b6-4092-880c-53eb9258368a&pn.lang=en&pn.resultcount=&pn.offset=&edb.count=2&edb.exhibitor=zeiss&edb.cpp=10&edb.sort=firma1&edb.offset=0&edb.exid=126023&edb.cmspage=dg257w9p&module=exhibitordatabase2
I know this is very late, but I have to say THANK YOU!
I just began reading this thread concerning the Zeiss FL and I was really wondering as I went to all those previous USLs , 'Are there any in english?'
Thanks again!
marcus

[gorank]

who will be the first posting something like: "I've just got my Zeiss FL:s today....and they look...."

looking forward to the first real review...

=)

[Andy Bright]

who will be the first posting something like: "I've just got my Zeiss FL:s today....and they look...."

looking forward to the first real review...

=)
I've been wondering the same thing.

[tlb]

Have there been any updates or refinements to the "June" availability?

Tony

[gorank]

I e-mailed eagleoptics.com, according to them: "The only update for arrival that we have been given is "summer"."

[Chas Zoss]

I e-mailed eagleoptics.com, according to them: "The only update for arrival that we have been given is "summer"."
I talked to Zeiss and they will be available in the USA before the end of June, And Steve Ingram wrote me that they were expecting some any day. When I placed my order at Eagle optics the sales person incorrectly informed me the new FLs came without lens caps, Steve Ingram wrote they come with lens covers. I beleve Steve!

[Andy Bright]

Judging from tonights tv 'Britain Goes Wild', Simon King would be able to give us a review of the FL's ... certainly looked like a pair on the bonnet of his 4WD along with a 85mm Diascope.

[henry link]

I phoned Zeiss-USA yesterday. They now say Victory FL's will be available in August or September.

[michaelboustead]

I phoned Zeiss-USA yesterday. They now say Victory FL's will be available in August or September.

I emailed Zeiss the same day you posted and they responded Late June and in the stores in July. Sorry to say but I suspect your info may prove more correct.

Mike

[henry link]

I emailed Zeiss the same day you posted and they responded Late June and in the stores in July. Sorry to say but I suspect your info may prove more correct.

Mike

Today the voice on the phone at Zeiss-USA said they expected the FL's by the end of June and in the stores in July. My palms are getting itchy and my wallet already looks thinner. Henry

[mpedris]

Any idea how much the FLs would cost in the U.S.?

[henry link]

Any idea how much the FLs would cost in the U.S.?

Eagle Optics gave me a price of $1199 for the 8X42.

[Anders Bræstrup]

I?m wondering if the flourite glass will get more scratches than conventional glass. If I read correctly flourite glass are not as hard in the material than conventional glass?! Could that be a disadvantage with Victory FL compared to the Ultravid for example?

[iporali]

I?m wondering if the flourite glass will get more scratches than conventional glass. If I read correctly flourite glass are not as hard in the material than conventional glass?! Could that be a disadvantage with Victory FL compared to the Ultravid for example?
A lens made from a fluorite crystal is soft, sensitive to moisture and rapid temperature changes, which is why it is not used as the front lens - at least without some extra hard coating. IIRC in the Victory FL Zeiss is not using real fluorite but some special kind of "fluoride containing glass" (ED glass?), which is hard but may not have as good dispersion characters. I am sure that with modern lens coatings the Victory FL is as scratch resistant as the Ultravid.

Ilkka

[Curtis Croulet]

Eagle Optics gave me a price of $1199 for the 8X42.

If the price in Europe is 1449 euros or 1499 euros (I've seen both), then I wonder how it can be brought in to the U.S. for a mere $1199?

[mpedris]

If the price in Europe is 1449 euros or 1499 euros (I've seen both), then I wonder how it can be brought in to the U.S. for a mere $1199?
Usually, most things are much cheaper in the U.S. than in Europe. This sometimes includes European stuff!

[Doug Greenberg]

With regard to the softness of fluorite glass, my guess is that the "exposed" glass will be non-ED, and that the glass with fluorite or fluorite-like properties will be located in a protected place inside the binoculars. That's how the ED telephoto lenses are made, with essentially neutral protective glass used for the big front element. This glass is a lot cheaper to replace if something bad happens to the lens.

[scampo]

I might be wrong, but I believe that the fluorite element is the front one - that's where it's needed to do its job. Hard coatings will prvent it scratching easily, though. I shall investigate with a pal who works in the industry and report back.

[DavidP]

Usually, most things are much cheaper in the U.S. than in Europe. This sometimes includes European stuff!


Might have something to do with the VAT rate 17 .5% in most of europe. 0% if you buy out of state in the US.
Of course you end up having to pay far more for college and full cost of prescriptions later in life so swings and roundabouts depends which if you're more socialistically or capitalist inclined.

[Leif]

Might have something to do with the VAT rate 17 .5% in most of europe. 0% if you buy out of state in the US.
Of course you end up having to pay far more for college and full cost of prescriptions later in life so swings and roundabouts depends which if you're more socialistically or capitalist inclined.

It's more likely to do with what the suppliers can get away with. Photographic gear used to be very expensive in Europe compared to America, but the prices seem to have levelled out, if you take VAT into account. Leica and Swaro optics seem to be similarly priced in Europe and the US, but Nikon and Zeiss tend to be much cheaper in the US. I know that Leica do not allow a shop to advertise below a certain price, so maybe Nikon and Zeiss are more flexible and market forces in America are more effective at lowering prices?

It's worse when you look at astro optics. A Televue 85 at $2000 in the US translates to £2000 in the UK. That is typical. It is cheaper to buy new from the US than used from the UK. I cannot understand why anyone would buy a Takahashi or other premium scope in this country. Someone is ripping us off!

[Leif]

With regard to the softness of fluorite glass, my guess is that the "exposed" glass will be non-ED, and that the glass with fluorite or fluorite-like properties will be located in a protected place inside the binoculars. That's how the ED telephoto lenses are made, with essentially neutral protective glass used for the big front element. This glass is a lot cheaper to replace if something bad happens to the lens.

I believe there are some scopes with 2 element objectives where the low dispersion element is the front one. This was only made possible by the use of hard coatings. Some Nikon lenses have an outer element that is nothing more than plane glass. It's there to protect what otherwise would be the front element.

[Swissboy]

It's worse when you look at astro optics. A Televue 85 at $2000 in the US translates to £2000 in the UK. That is typical. Someone is ripping us off!

I just noticed the same relationship £ = $ for Nikon eyepieces (Warehouse Express vs B&H) But you are still lucky, prices in Switzerland are even higher. Which is why it pays for us to get things from the UK.

[william j clive]

QUOTE-It's worse when you look at astro optics. A Televue 85 at $2000 in the US translates to £2000 in the UK. That is typical. It is cheaper to buy new from the US than used from the UK. I cannot understand why anyone would buy a Takahashi or other premium scope in this country. Someone is ripping us off![/QUOTE]



I just bought an $120 Orion Ultrascopic eyepiece that retails for £120 in the UK.

It was used, absolutely mint condition, for $85 equals £47 inc. postage! ;)


Clive

[zurtfox]

Swoptics website has just been updated to include details of the Victory FLs:

http://www.swoptics.co.uk/view.asp?KEY=2086

and is quoting a Euro converted price of around £1,000.

Chris

[william j clive]

Swoptics website has just been updated to include details of the Victory FLs:

http://www.swoptics.co.uk/view.asp?KEY=2086

and is quoting a Euro converted price of around £1,000.

Chris


That means the street price in a few months time will be around £800.

And there will be a glut of used 7x42 ClassiCs at bargain prices.

Hopefully.

Clive

[mpedris]

Any professional reviews on the FLs yet? I wonder how soon BVD will review this...

[pduxon]

Any professional reviews on the FLs yet? I wonder how soon BVD will review this...

will be difficult as I believe he helped design them.

[Hermann]

Any professional reviews on the FLs yet? I wonder how soon BVD will review this...

Not sure about BVD, but there are two websites I'll be watching very closely in the next few weeks:

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no

http://www.tvwg.nl/

I find their tests generally very close to my own impressions. In fact, they seem me to be more reliable than the BVD reviews.

BTW, the latest I heard here is that Zeiss expects the FL's to be in the shops in July in Germany. They normally don't start delivering new products until they have enough for all the places that carry their products. When the Victory's were introduced they put back the date twice because there was so much demand.

Hermann

[Rico]

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033F8E4?Open
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033F8E4/ContentsWWWintern/91C3D3BBB32ABF17C1256EBA005194AB

[Chas Zoss]

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033F8E4?Open
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033F8E4/ContentsWWWintern/91C3D3BBB32ABF17C1256EBA005194AB
Not very happy with the new warranty!

[CDK]

Not very happy with the new warranty!

I think Chas that the 10 year warranty applies to Europe. I gather from information given to me by Leica, that new models from the leading European manufacturers carry the same warranty period.

In the US as you know they have lifetime warranty (valid US only). Maybe the FL's will still have lifetime warranty in the US.

[Chas Zoss]

I think Chas that the 10 year warranty applies to Europe. I gather from information given to me by Leica, that new models from the leading European manufacturers carry the same warranty period.

In the US as you know they have lifetime warranty (valid US only). Maybe the FL's will still have lifetime warranty in the US.
I sure hope you are right after sending back the 8x42 ultravids for the new Zeiss Fls.

[hinnark]

Hi,

not a professional review but a short report. I had the chance on a birding fair in May here in Northern Germany to try the new Victoy FLs. Most interested in 10x42 binoculars I focussed on these models and compared Zeiss Victory FL with 10x42 models of Swarovski EL and Leica Ultravid side by side.

But first the substantial shortly: the glasses are optical top performancers. The optics technical designers of Zeiss really mastered their homework with bravour. The 7x42 Victory FL is fascinating with its great field of view. An enormous field of view of 150 m on 1km with amazingly high edge performance! The old 7x42 is exceeded herein and it will adjusted soon. The 7x50 and the 8x56 ClassiC are continued to offer for the old fashioned guys - hunters and sailors. The Diafuns becomes in favor of the Conquest binoculars ("Made in Hungary") adjusted. The first impressions: The new Victory FLs are looking a bit bulky and differs to that from the Conquest binos of Zeiss. Unfortunately the glasses became somewhat heavier now again than those of the predecessor series. Design is a matter of taste but I would say that the Leica Ultravids are more elegant. With the processing (armour, materials) the Swarovski EL gave a high-quality feeling to my eyes and hands. Succeeded perfectly with Zeiss the construction of the new twist in eyecups. With 4 steps of "clicks" they work more precise than any other construction of eyecups I know. The Victory FL carries the gravour "Made in Germany", they are built in Wetzlar.

Here are now the results of my little contest. > meant better than.

Resolution: Zeiss=Swaro=Leica
Contrast: Zeiss>Swaro=Leica
Brightness: Zeiss>Leica>Swaro
Color correction: Zeiss>Leica>Swaro
Prevention against scattered light and reflexes: Zeiss>Leica>Swaro
Randsome sharpness: Zeiss>Swaro>Leica
Weight: Zeiss 765 g, Leica 765 g, Swaro 780 g

The victories now eliminating color fringing better than any other bino I know. It thus really successfully make in end with the weakness of the predecessor series when viewing at high contrast motives. The color of the picture is now neutral - no bias. Swarovski tends rather to direction blue, Leica likewise neutrally. I was also impressed by that extremely closest point of view of 2 m. The focus works much like the one of Leica. With a little bit more of one turn you can manage the whole range of distances.

I would not like to conceal two weak points that I found with the new Victory models I tested. In two cases the armour sprang out nearby the ocular lens.
While turning the focussing wheel I noticed some kind of friction that was stronger in the middle of one turn. I asked Zeiss about that and they told me the reason for the defects are ascribing to the fact that first testing models are handmade prototypes.

Regards

Steve

[Andy Bright]

Thanks Steve, we already had a link to a review you posted on a German astronomy site but your translation into English is far better than Babelfish. I found the 7X42 spectacular, almost sorry that I'm a 10x birder ;)

[iporali]

...
I found the 7X42 spectacular, almost sorry that I'm a 10x birder ;)
Andy,
Do you remember, was the focusing direction of the FLs "left-handed" like it is with some (all?) other Zeisses?

Ilkka

[Andy Bright]

Andy,
Do you remember, was the focusing direction of the FLs "left-handed" like it is with some (all?) other Zeisses?

IlkkaI can't honestly remember. It certainly helps having the focus direction the same as your previous binos .... it takes me a long time to get used to focusing in a different direction to what I'm used to (same with scopes). It's a bit lke getting a car with the fuel tank on a different side ;)
Regards,
Andy

[henry link]

Today Robin, the pleasant but disappointing voice on the phone at Zeiss-USA said this about the Victory FL's:

"August. They may come sooner, but we are telling people August"

[mpedris]

Today Robin, the pleasant but disappointing voice on the phone at Zeiss-USA said this about the Victory FL's:

"August. They may come sooner, but we are telling people August"
That's sad news indeed.

Any idea how much these would cost in the U.S., Henry?

[Chas Zoss]

That's sad news indeed.

Any idea how much these would cost in the U.S., Henry?
Eagle optics quoted me 1199.00

[mpedris]

Eagle optics quoted me 1199.00
Thanks, Chas. I forgot that I had already asked this question once before.

But the $1199.00 quote you got was for which power (7x 8x 10x)?

[henry link]

Eagle Optics quoted me $1199 for the 8X42.

[Chas Zoss]

Eagle Optics quoted me $1199 for the 8X42.
8x42 but the 7x42 sounds very nice!

[kabsetz]

Hi all. I'm new to this site but have done extensive birding optics testing in Finland for several years. I had a quick look at pre-distribution samples of the V FL:s recently. Regarding CA, in the middle of the field there was very little indeed, but towards the edges it was clearly visible, although the colour fringes were notably narrow. Birds flying against a bright blue sky looked very crisp and "unfringed" in the middle of the field. However, based on this very brief encounter, I did not feel there was a quantum leap in CA correction over Nikon SE:s, which in this respect have been better than premium roof prisms. Once the V FL:s actually hit the shelves, we'll be able to say more. I shall not comment on other attributes of these binoculars at this point, since the samples we had here were likely not fully representative of what the final product will be like.

[mpedris]

...I did not feel there was a quantum leap in CA correction over Nikon SE:s, which in this respect have been better than premium roof prisms...This comparison (Nikon SE vs. Zeiss V FL) would be one I am very much interested in. I just purchased an 8x32SE. I was thinking of buying the 10x42SE next. But, if the FL 10x42 can out-perform the SE optically, I might give it some serious consideration as a possible alternative.

Therefore, kabsetz, please do inform us if you do get the chance to make a comparison with a production model of V:FL. As I said, in my case, optical performance is all I care about.

Thanks.

[Kevin Wade]

The Victory T* FLs seem to be on sale already in Spain - 1398 euros for the 7 x 42 on the Oryx site - http://www.weboryx.com
Kevin

[Hermann]

Hi all. I'm new to this site but have done extensive birding optics testing in Finland for several years.

Great so see you posting here ..:-) I very much enjoyed your reviews both of scopes and binoculars in the past, and I'm really looking forward to your posts here.

Hermann

[Curtis Croulet]

Eagle Optics also quoted to me $1199 for the 8x42. IMHO, the longer it takes for them to arrive, the less likely EO will be able to hold this price, as the dollar sinks further against the euro.

[Andy Bright]

Eagle Optics also quoted to me $1199 for the 8x42. IMHO, the longer it takes for them to arrive, the less likely EO will be able to hold this price, as the dollar sinks further against the euro.
That price is amazingly low and I'd be surprised if they can continue to sell at that price for long. Let's hope thay don't alter the price when they actually have some stock.

[marcus]

When is Better View Desired going to give a report on the Vicotory T* FLs? I thought that he was working for Zeiss now, so I thought that he would have done that already.
marcus

[Chas Zoss]

When is Better View Desired going to give a report on the Vicotory T* FLs? I thought that he was working for Zeiss now, so I thought that he would have done that already.
marcus
I am pretty sure Steve is no longer with B.V.D.

[Hermann]

When is Better View Desired going to give a report on the Vicotory T* FLs? I thought that he was working for Zeiss now, so I thought that he would have done that already. marcus

I' also waiting for the first test reports. There are three places I'll look (apart from BirdForum of cours)):

Alula (a Finnish birding magazine with excellent test reports, the international edition is in English)
http://www.tvwg.nl/ (in Dutch, but with very good tables that aren't difficult to understand)
http://kikkertspesialisten.no (in Norwegian, but once again not that difficult to understand)

I'll check with my dealer on Tuesday to see if he knows when he'll get the first FL's.

Hermann

[Leif]

Hi all. I'm new to this site but have done extensive birding optics testing in Finland for several years. I had a quick look at pre-distribution samples of the V FL:s recently. Regarding CA, in the middle of the field there was very little indeed, but towards the edges it was clearly visible, although the colour fringes were notably narrow. Birds flying against a bright blue sky looked very crisp and "unfringed" in the middle of the field. However, based on this very brief encounter, I did not feel there was a quantum leap in CA correction over Nikon SE:s, which in this respect have been better than premium roof prisms. Once the V FL:s actually hit the shelves, we'll be able to say more. I shall not comment on other attributes of these binoculars at this point, since the samples we had here were likely not fully representative of what the final product will be like.

In case anyone is interested, I was given a demonstration of the new FL binoculars from a Zeiss representative and he allowed me to try them out in the field for half an hour. Note that when I say 'in the field' I mean just that, including some real rain thrown in at no extra charge, to create the authentic birding experience. If you just want to know are they worth the wait, then yes, they are. Incidentally my comments apply to the 8x42 FL, though I had a quick look through the 7x42 FL and 10x42 FL too, and optically they seem very similar, apart from the difference in magnification.

In terms of finish and build quality they seem excellent and on a par with the competition from Nikon, Swarovski and Leica. I always thought the original Victories did not quite match up to the competition, with an armour that did not feel quite right. The shape of the FL is very similar to the Leica Ultravids with a fairly firm plastic/rubber armour, and an excellent finish. Overall a very comfortable design with a good tactile feel. The eye tubes screw in and out and - a Zeiss innovation - have several click stop positions. The eye tubes on the samples I tried were a bit stiff though I was told that they were prototypes. (Actually they seemed okay to me, but the Zeiss chap seemed very concerned to let me know that the eye tubes were not as good as production ones. Maybe a few people had made negative comments to him.) The focus knob is centrally mounted, rotates smoothly, and dioptric adjustment is achieved by pulling the focus knob out, and then dialling in the required dioptric offset. Overall the ergonomics really were first rate and in terms of the general feel significantly better then the original Victory line. On a par with Leica et al? Yes.

As for the optics, well I should state that my observations really are no more than first impressions. But overall I have to say that the image is first rate. The most obvious feature is the use of flouride glass (note that this is NOT flourite). The claim is that use of flouride glass can reduce the amount of colour fringing originating from longitudinal chromatic aberration (i.e. CA from the objectives). Well, it does. There is still some fringing towards the field edges, but not much, and in any case this might originate from the prisms, or the eyepieces. More importantly when I observed a white swan on a lake I saw absolutely no fringing over most of the field. The image was remarkably natural. In other words, fringing was insignificant. (It might be that on a sunny day, with more contrasty lighting, that fringing might be a bit more apparent, but I would guess that it would still be minor, and on a par with my Nikon 8x32 SE, if not better.) Although I was not able to do side by side tests, I am confident that the Zeiss FL has much less CA then competing products i.e. comparable roof prism binoculars from Leica et al., which always seem to have more CA than I can cope with. (Many lucky people do not notice CA.)

Sharpness and contrast seemed excellent, and probably compare well against the competition, if not better. (Zeiss claim better transmission figures than competing products. They also claim excellent resolution, but I was not able to test this. An independent review of the original Victory 10x40 by Alula suggests better brightness and resolution than competing products with the exception of the Nikon 10x40 SE.) Certainly the image clarity is impressive. Critical examination of the extreme field edges showed some softness (image plane curvature?) and some distortion (barrel IIRC) but I would class it as insignificant, since I did not notice it until I searched for it. (All binoculars, even my sacred Nikon 8x32 SE, show some edge defects.)

Depth of field was excellent. (From a theoretical viewpoint I am told that all 8x42 binoculars should show the same DOF, but in practice there are variation between products. Don't ask me why. Maybe someone can explain to me?)

I saw no flare, or obvious colour cast, but then again is 30 minutes on an overcast day enough time to spot such flaws if present?

Overall I would say that Zeiss probably have a winner on their hands as they have excellent ergonomics and optics. They deserve to sell well and IMO can compete head to head with competing products from Leica et al. (Actually on the basis of my brief look I would say that they are better than the competition since I abhore CA.) I guess it all depends on how well Zeiss markets them, and on the price.

As to price, well who knows, but I doubt they will be cheap.

[mpedris]

Leif,

An EXCELLENT review. Thanks for taking the trouble.

As I have previously posted, I LOVE my new 8x32SE. Now I'm eyeing a 10x bin and was wondering about the Zeiss FLs (10x42). Do you have any opinions at all about how the FL 10x42 would compare with the Nikon 10x42SE (in terms of brightness, resolution, CA, etc)?

If not, between the 8x32SE and the FL 8x42 that you tested, which would you personally buy if you were shopping today for a binocular? Which gives the most "pleasing" and natural image? Is the FL significantly brighter (being 42mm) than the 8x32SE?

Thanks a lot for your time and expertise.

[Leif]

Leif,

An EXCELLENT review. Thanks for taking the trouble.

As I have previously posted, I LOVE my new 8x32SE. Now I'm eyeing a 10x bin and was wondering about the Zeiss FLs (10x42). Do you have any opinions at all about how the FL 10x42 would compare with the Nikon 10x42SE (in terms of brightness, resolution, CA, etc)?

If not, between the 8x32SE and the FL 8x42 that you tested, which would you personally buy if you were shopping today for a binocular? Which gives the most "pleasing" and natural image? Is the FL significantly brighter (being 42mm) than the 8x32SE?

Thanks a lot for your time and expertise.

Hi Manendra: I cannot really comment on the relative brightness as I have not compared them. I did have my Nikon 8x32 in the car but I did not want to expose it to the rain. An Alula test of 10x binoculars found the Zeiss 10x40 Victory and Nikon 10x42 were equal brightest, so I expect the Zeiss 10x42 FL would at least match the Nikon 10x42 SE. (Maybe 'Mr. Alula' will comment.) I certainly think the Zeiss FL deserve a very close look. Quite a few people have already had a peek at them, and the general feeling is that they are worthy of the Zeiss name and the reputation of the old Classics. I'm sure Zeiss are not displeased with the comments already received.

As to which I would buy, well to be honest I think with something this expensive you have to compare them for yourself, in the field e.g. on a field day. If that is not possible, then you have to wait until many people have reviewed them to give a more balanced opinion, or buy from a shop with a return policy.

(Incidentally I don't like 10x binoculars so would not buy any 10x42.)

Your piggy bank must be giving you very dirty looks?

[Curtis Croulet]

Yes, this really is an excellent review. My piggy bank maintains the same impassive, stoic expression at all times. It's my wife who's giving me the dirty looks when I tell her I'm thinking of buying these. She's a birder, too, but she can't see any reason to go beyond the bins we already have (Minolta Activa 8x42 WP and Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42).

[Pinewood]

For what it is worth, the binocular salesman at B&H Photo has no idea when the Victory FL's will arrive, but he is looking forward to them.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[scampo]

Yes, this really is an excellent review. My piggy bank maintains the same impassive, stoic expression at all times. It's my wife who's giving me the dirty looks when I tell her I'm thinking of buying these. She's a birder, too, but she can't see any reason to go beyond the bins we already have (Minolta Activa 8x42 WP and Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42).
My wife has a pair of those Minolta binoculars (the 10x50s) and, although perhaps not quite as bright as my Swarovski's, they are pretty good for the price: sharp, clear, and wide.

I had a chance to try out the new Zeiss binoculars, the other week. In every way, they were excellent. But the difference between those binoculars and other top makes is quite narrow. That said, the new Zeiss binoculars were exceptionally lightweight -- and that is important in the field. I suppose if money were no object, there is no question, for me, that I would be buying the Zeiss FLs when they arrive on the market. It has to be said, that these things are only bought once, and probably will last 10 to 20 years or more. It can also be said, that you do get what you pay for -- the problem is the difference in price is so high between the very good and the excellent.

[Swissboy]

Yes, this really is an excellent review. My piggy bank maintains the same impassive, stoic expression at all times. It's my wife who's giving me the dirty looks when I tell her I'm thinking of buying these. She's a birder, too, but she can't see any reason to go beyond the bins we already have (Minolta Activa 8x42 WP and Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42).

I recently had my wife's Zeiss Victory I 10x40 binoculars along when I met a chap who had a 25€ (or even 25 DM?) pair of 10x25's. He wanted to compare and I also looked through his binoculars. His conclusion was that he had a pretty good pair considering the price difference. And I had to agree on that. The point is, of course, that every little extra step forward results in a enormous hike of the price. Thus, if you just want to see the birds, even most details, you really don't need these expensive types. But if you want more than just to see, i.e. if you want to be able to ENJOY, then, these expensive models may well be worth their cost. That's what happened to me when I switched from my trusted Bausch and Lomb that had served me so well over more than two decades to the then brand new Leica Apo Televid 77. I felt like birding had started all over again! It sure was a quantum leap, particularly under less than favorable conditions. These optics should really not be compared on a nice and sunny day. Especially so, because the heat waves destroy the picture quality unless you look at very close-up things. So, I can understand if a person thinks it's crazy to go for those top-line models. But it is certainly more than wanting to have a status symbol around your neck. It's about how much you appreciate that crispness of the picture. It's clear that our piggy bank can veto our wishes. But one person (and be it your wife) can't really decide for another one how important that extra amount of picture quality may be to you. Before I got my wife those Victories, she was perfectly happy with her Fujinon 8x40 porros which she had used for more than 30 years! And they were really good, in fact they still are. Her main complaints had been about the weight and some mechanical problems only. However, now that my wife has these Victories, she has had a similar experience like the one I had with the scopes. In particular, looking at flowers has become an additional pastime for her since. In essence, then, you only know what you have been missing when you change to the new model.

[scampo]

In essence, then, you only know what you have been missing when you change to the new model.Hello Robert

You'll have to buy your wife a pair of the new Zeiss FLs when they finally come out, then. What you said in your post was very true. It would certainly be nice if these new scopes got rid of heat haze. I've said in the past that at the price they are, they ought to come with a bird magnet fixed to the front, as well.
I hope everything is well in Switzerland. Just for the record, I think I finally did agree with the Swiss referee. I have to say, how he managed to see that arm stopping the goalkeeper, from that distance, I'll never know. I wish he had allowed the goal, though.

;-)

[Grousemore]

My wife has a pair of those Minolta binoculars (the 10x50s) and, although perhaps not quite as bright as my Swarovski's, they are pretty good for the price: sharp, clear, and wide.



The Minolta waterproof 'D WP' range does not include a 10x50 binocular,but like for like are as good as the major brands in my opinion.

[Hermann]

The point is, of course, that every little extra step forward results in a enormous hike of the price. Thus, if you just want to see the birds, even most details, you really don't need these expensive types. But if you want more than just to see, i.e. if you want to be able to ENJOY, then, these expensive models may well be worth their cost. That's what happened to me when I switched from my trusted Bausch and Lomb that had served me so well over more than two decades to the then brand new Leica Apo Televid 77. I felt like birding had started all over again! It sure was a quantum leap, particularly under less than favorable conditions.

Actually, I personally believe it's scopes more than binoculars that have made a quantum leap.

When you compare good porros from the 1950's and 1960's to the latest generation of high-end roofs, there is a difference, no doubt about it, especially the contrast of the modern roofs is somewhat better than that of the oldtimers. But these old bins can still hold their own, even today. My Zeiss 8x50B from 1963, for instance, which I bought second-hand years ago, is still useable in the field, and apart from some contrast I don't miss much. That pair is still much better than any roof without phase coating, and CA is at least as good as in the best modern roofs. Some time ago I had a chance to have a look through a pair of wartime Zeiss 8x60H's with Porro II prisms and wide-angle eyepieces, a sought-after collectors's item that fetches ridiculously high prices ión Ebay nowadays. That pair with it's - by today's standard - primitive coatings was optically excellent, better my Leica 8x32's. (It was also much larger and heavier, but that's besides the point.)

But scopes - that's where the quantum leaps were made. I remember the Hertel & Reuss Televaris and the Nickel Supras (actually a Nickel Supra was my first scope back in 1978) - they were *horrible* by today's standards. When the first Optolyths appeared (who still remembers the Optolyth 30x75?) they were much sought-after. They were better than the Televaris and the Nickel Supras - but by today's standard they were still awful. A soft image, low contrast, and they leaked like hell in the rain. My third scope was a Kowa TS 1 - still not that good optically, but at least it was fairly rain-proof. The zoom eyepiece, however, was a bad joke. I threw mine away and bought a couple of fixed eyepieces instead.

And today? There are lots of excellent scopes to choose from, there are several good zoom eyepieces on the market, wetherproofing is pretty much standard ...

I personally would go as far as to claim that much of the progress in bird identification has only been made possible by the development of first class scopes. Not by the development of better binoculars - the old porros from the 1950's and 1960's were already pretty good.

Hermann
(getting off his soap box)

[Rivendell61]

Just discovered this excellent Forum due to a link to this Zeiss thread--

I'm a 'birder' in only the most casual sense--but enjoy good optics, and have always had a soft spot for Zeiss. Having jumped on the Victories (the 8x) during version 1 release, I'm a bit hesitant to get the FL (pre FL 'II'....)
but no doubt will be unable to resist! They sound excellent.

The Victory I's have actually always seemed quite fine to me (apart from some bit of field curve). And the fellow (Steve?) at BVD indicated to me in a conversation years ago that his somewhat harsh review was more indicating disappointment over the Victory not bettering the field--he thought they still were optically quite good.
The BVD site seems to have had no update since March--do I understand he has abandoned it and gone to work for Zeiss?

Another question: has anyone noted if the FL has the same Victory tripod attachment set-up? I can spend the funds on the binos without regret--but $100 on a little piece of metal to attach them to a tripod....

Many thanks for all the excellent reviews and information,

Mark

[Hermann]

The Victory I's have actually always seemed quite fine to me (apart from some bit of field curve). And the fellow (Steve?) at BVD indicated to me in a conversation years ago that his somewhat harsh review was more indicating disappointment over the Victory not bettering the field--he thought they still were optically quite good. [snip] Another question: has anyone noted if the FL has the same Victory tripod attachment set-up? I can spend the funds on the binos without regret--but $100 on a little piece of metal to attach them to a tripod....

I always felt the original BVD review was unfair. I got the very first version of the Victory 10x40 after some extensive comparisons in the field, and at the time I liked it better than the other high-end roofs. Since then I had Zeiss change the eyecups (which didn't lock in my pair) and the strap attachments (which I didn't like much in the first version). I don't know whether they made any other changes, but when I compare my pair now to the Ultravids or the Swaro ELs I still feel they're very good indeed.

The tripod attachment - that's changed. Zeiss now offers a rather clumsy looking curved plate that you can put the binoculars on. They're attached with a strap. I reckon it won't be too difficult to make one myself if I want one.

Hermann

[Grousemore]

Just discovered this excellent Forum due to a link to this Zeiss thread--




Mark

Hi Mark and welcome to Birdforum from the Moderators and Staff.

[Rico]

Leif, thanks for the inspiring review. I very much enjoy my current bin (Victory Compact 8x20B), but want that 150m FOV. Only question is whether I buy with the first wave of Zeiss fanatics, or the second :-)

Guess I'll never fondle the beautiful packaging of the Ultravid BL: persistent feedback about CA and focus mechanism leaves me unsettled. Optics come first.

[hinnark]

Hi Manendra,

you asked:

As I have previously posted, I LOVE my new 8x32SE. Now I'm eyeing a 10x bin and was wondering about the Zeiss FLs (10x42). Do you have any opinions at all about how the FL 10x42 would compare with the Nikon 10x42SE (in terms of brightness, resolution, CA, etc)?


There are 2 main differences between 10x42 Ninon SE and Zeiss Victory FL. The field of view is noticable greater with the Zeiss. Also its brightness is stronger than wtih the Nikon. Color correction seemed better with the Zeiss in my eyes.

I was viewing in the field with different binos I mentioned here before - Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss. The weather was cloudy - sometimes the sun was shining and sometimes not. I was looking at a black sign with tiny white letters at a distance of about 10 m. I moved the bino slowly from the center to the edge of view to the right and to the left and up and down. I also made this with Nikons 8x32 and 10x32 HG. This is a very hard test for every optic. I think it´s impossible to reduce CA to zero with a instrument of short focal length like a binocular is. In my testing the Nikon HGs and also SEs showed most CA even in the center of view and the Zeiss FL showed the fewest. As I wrote before in fact CA were not visible for me with the FL even in the outer ranges of field of view.

But I would say that these differences in color correction performance with the binos we are talking here are quite irrelevant in practical birding. Only the old Zeiss Victory performed a little bit too low in this respect. That´s the reason why Zeiss had to do something.

Steve

[hinnark]

Hi Steve


"It can also be said, that you do get what you pay for -- the problem is the difference in price is so high between the very good and the excellent."

Just a comment:
You do get what you pay for but for a Swarovski El you have to pay a little bit more ;)

[Pinewood]

Hermann,

You were fortunate that Zeiss replaced the eyecups and strap attachments on your Victory I glass. Zeiss USA did not provide that service. As you did, I think that the BVD review was unfair. In my case, I read the review after trying and purchasing the binocular.

A fellow birder and member of BF finds that the Victory 8x40 brighter than the Nikon 8x42 LX [HG], slightly poorer in resolution, poorer in colour rendition and lighter in weight. As he has the luxury of owning both, he prefers the Victory for long excursions. The new FL seems to match or exceed the Nikon HG in all respects.

Hinnark,

A retailer of binoculars once informed me that , "Leica and Zeiss are great optical firms. Swarovski is a great marketing firm." He did not carry Swarovski glasses.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[iporali]

I think it´s impossible to reduce CA to zero with a instrument of short focal length like a binocular is. In my testing the Nikon HGs and also SEs showed most CA even in the center of view and the Zeiss FL showed the fewest. As I wrote before in fact CA were not visible for me with the FL even in the outer ranges of field of view.

But I would say that these differences in color correction performance with the binos we are talking here are quite irrelevant in practical birding. Only the old Zeiss Victory performed a little bit too low in this respect. That´s the reason why Zeiss had to do something.

Steve

I agree. I think the main problem with the old Victory design was to try to achieve too compact binos using the Abbe-Koenig-prisms - just by extending the tubes a bit (and thereby the focal length) Zeiss probably were able to reduce the CA in the FLs. Of course the fluoride glass has a role too.

Ilkka

[Leif]

I agree. I think the main problem with the old Victory design was to try to achieve too compact binos using the Abbe-Koenig-prisms - just by extending the tubes a bit (and thereby the focal length) Zeiss probably were able to reduce the CA in the FLs. Of course the fluoride glass has a role too.

Ilkka

FWIW I suspect that it is not practical, or maybe too costly, to make an APO 8x40 binocular with current technology. Maybe the prisms are the stumbling block. The Zeiss FL range are not APO but seem to have reduced CA to the point where I do not notice it.


A retailer of binoculars once informed me that , "Leica and Zeiss are great optical firms. Swarovski is a great marketing firm." He did not carry Swarovski glasses.


A salesman for a major UK birding optics retailer told me that the Leica APO 77 scope was outdated and a poor performer and that the Zeiss scope was not too hot either. Note that he stocked only Swarovski, Nikon and Opticron. My own experiences suggest that he was talking nonsense.

[Leif]

Guess I'll never fondle the beautiful packaging of the Ultravid BL: persistent feedback about CA and focus mechanism leaves me unsettled. Optics come first.

Rico: I would recommend you try the Leica. I happen to think the Zeiss is first rate, but you really have to try the competition too, rather than rely on second hand accounts such as mine. I tried the Leica briefly and noticed no problem with the focus. (I'm not saying it is not as described by some others, but it just did not bother me.) I did notice more CA than I like but I am very fussy about CA. We all have our own preferences and dislikes!

[hg1]

Just discovered this excellent Forum due to a link to this Zeiss thread--

I'm a 'birder' in only the most casual sense--but enjoy good optics, and have always had a soft spot for Zeiss. Having jumped on the Victories (the 8x) during version 1 release, I'm a bit hesitant to get the FL (pre FL 'II'....)
but no doubt will be unable to resist! They sound excellent.

The Victory I's have actually always seemed quite fine to me (apart from some bit of field curve). And the fellow (Steve?) at BVD indicated to me in a conversation years ago that his somewhat harsh review was more indicating disappointment over the Victory not bettering the field--he thought they still were optically quite good.
The BVD site seems to have had no update since March--do I understand he has abandoned it and gone to work for Zeiss?

Another question: has anyone noted if the FL has the same Victory tripod attachment set-up? I can spend the funds on the binos without regret--but $100 on a little piece of metal to attach them to a tripod....

Many thanks for all the excellent reviews and information,

Mark

I have enjoyed this thread about the new Zeiss and look forward to actually seeing these new bins and trying them out. However, I am a little perplexed about Zeiss actually bringing out another model for birders so soon after what I consider to be a near perfect model - the Victory IIs. Sure the original Victories (I) got a lot of flak for various reasons. However, the IIs (and I have a pair of 10x40s) seem to me to be just about unimprovable. I consider them better than the Swaro ELs or Leicas. Was it just that the Vicory IIs were "tarnished" by the reviews of the Is and Zeiss wanted to get away from that situation by bringing out something entirely different?

[CJW]

I have enjoyed this thread about the new Zeiss and look forward to actually seeing these new bins and trying them out. However, I am a little perplexed about Zeiss actually bringing out another model for birders so soon after what I consider to be a near perfect model - the Victory IIs. Sure the original Victories (I) got a lot of flak for various reasons. However, the IIs (and I have a pair of 10x40s) seem to me to be just about unimprovable. I consider them better than the Swaro ELs or Leicas.
Agreed.
You can keep your Nikons/leicas/Swaros etc etc.

[Hermann]

Was it just that the Vicory IIs were "tarnished" by the reviews of the Is and Zeiss wanted to get away from that situation by bringing out something entirely different?

Well, I think they definitely were tarnished by the critical reviews. That review by BVD must have cost Zeiss quite some sales in the US. But as always there was some truth in these reviews - the original strap attachment wasn't well thought out, the armouring was too sticky, and the optics had (at least to some people's eyes) more CA than desirable. So the change to a new model did make a lot of sense.

Also, the Victory FL's aren't entirely different from the original Victory's - they also employ Abbe-König prisms, for instance, whereas most other manufacturers use Pechan prisms in their roofs.

Hermann

[hinnark]

The old Victories had just that problem with CA in high contrast motives.
But without doubt, they have some advantages we now are missing with the FLs (and with other brands): first of all the weight. Only just as much as a Nikon 32 HG (Venturer). The much criticised strap attachment where I had never a problem with had also its advantage. When using the bino on a tripod mount the strap is always bothering to me. So it was a good idea from Zeiss to invent a quick opening device that enables you to get off the strap quick and without fumbling. The eyecups of the older model were singular in their construction. They offered prevention against stray light from the sides and were also push-in-push-outable. So I would say to Zeiss: It´s a good thing to do better in optics but why do you give up your good ideas?

Steve

[Pinewood]

[QUOTE=hinnarker brands)\So I would say to Zeiss: It´s a good thing to do better in optics but why do you give up your good ideas?

Steve[/QUOTE]

Steve,

I would guess that since Zeiss hired Ingraham [BVD] they are letting one man's preferences drive their marketing decisions. Like you, I had no trouble with the strap attachments while the soft covering did not annoy me.

Should the FL's improve CA and accomodate the AK prism better, they may prove to be formidable binoculars. By improving the optics and watertight envelope, Zeiss clearly hopes to obsolesce the 7x42 Classic, a popular but rather old design.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[mpedris]

Hi Manendra,

you asked:

As I have previously posted, I LOVE my new 8x32SE. Now I'm eyeing a 10x bin and was wondering about the Zeiss FLs (10x42). Do you have any opinions at all about how the FL 10x42 would compare with the Nikon 10x42SE (in terms of brightness, resolution, CA, etc)?


There are 2 main differences between 10x42 Ninon SE and Zeiss Victory FL. The field of view is noticable greater with the Zeiss. Also its brightness is stronger than wtih the Nikon. Color correction seemed better with the Zeiss in my eyes.

I was viewing in the field with different binos I mentioned here before - Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss. The weather was cloudy - sometimes the sun was shining and sometimes not. I was looking at a black sign with tiny white letters at a distance of about 10 m. I moved the bino slowly from the center to the edge of view to the right and to the left and up and down. I also made this with Nikons 8x32 and 10x32 HG. This is a very hard test for every optic. I think it´s impossible to reduce CA to zero with a instrument of short focal length like a binocular is. In my testing the Nikon HGs and also SEs showed most CA even in the center of view and the Zeiss FL showed the fewest. As I wrote before in fact CA were not visible for me with the FL even in the outer ranges of field of view.

But I would say that these differences in color correction performance with the binos we are talking here are quite irrelevant in practical birding. Only the old Zeiss Victory performed a little bit too low in this respect. That´s the reason why Zeiss had to do something.

Steve
Hello Steve.

Thank you for that feedback. I see a minute amount of CA in my 8x32SE, but if I could have that, too, eliminated, it would be awesome. But the very natural view through the SE is unbelievable. You soon forget you're looking through a glass at all.

I hope the FLs can provide a similar experience, although, being roofs, I doubt they can provide the 3-D appearance that porros tend to achieve. I'm waiting till these become available in the U.S. so I can consider buying them.

Thanks again.

[mpedris]

Hi Manendra:

As to which I would buy, well to be honest I think with something this expensive you have to compare them for yourself, in the field e.g. on a field day. If that is not possible, then you have to wait until many people have reviewed them to give a more balanced opinion, or buy from a shop with a return policy.

(Incidentally I don't like 10x binoculars so would not buy any 10x42.)

Your piggy bank must be giving you very dirty looks?

Hi Leif,

Thanks for your feedback.

I will definitely read many reviews before making a purchase and your views will add to my collection of reviews. Rest assured that my purchase decisions will not be rash. It is because I value your opinion that I ask for it. But I am well aware that it is only just that: an opinion, and will treat is as one. Therefore, I'd greatly appreciate if you would provide me with it.

My piggy bank is not just giving me dirty looks. It's threatening to run away, considering the fact that I started my bino hunt looking at the Nikon Action Extreme 8x40 and 10x50!! :eek!:

Man must evolve, must he not? ;)

[marcus]

Can I ask a question that I'm sure most of you guys will consider pretty silly?
What does FL stand for? Is that the same L as in EL?

[mak]

Can I ask a question that I'm sure most of you guys will consider pretty silly?
What does FL stand for? Is that the same L as in EL?

The FL indicates the use of glass containing fluorine ions (fluoride glass) which is found in the objective lens.

The EL to my knowledge does not indicate this, but possibly extra light or similar, I am sure that someone else could give a more definitive answer to the EL branding.

Arthur Pinewood
Surely, Steven Ingraham would not have been the only birder to have had an input into the new bins. I would have thought that other key birders from around the World would have had a significant input, so perhaps it would be wrong to say that Zeiss listened to one person.

[Swissboy]

Hello Robert

You'll have to buy your wife a pair of the new Zeiss FLs when they finally come out, then. What you said in your post was very true. It would certainly be nice if these new scopes got rid of heat haze. I've said in the past that at the price they are, they ought to come with a bird magnet fixed to the front, as well.
I hope everything is well in Switzerland. Just for the record, I think I finally did agree with the Swiss referee. I have to say, how he managed to see that arm stopping the goalkeeper, from that distance, I'll never know. I wish he had allowed the goal, though.

;-)

Hi Steve, if anything, I'll get MYSELF a pair of those FLs. My Leica 8x32 BAs are a bit worn. But most of all, they are too dark in the forest, and especially in the rainforest. (If I ever get back to it.) In fact, I am (formally) 1/3rd co-owner of my wife's Victory Is. Just so I can borrow them every once in a while without feeling too bad.

As for the championships, I have not seen a single moment of any of those games. I do not own a TV, and I am not particularly interested in football anyway. I have read a bit in the newspaper, however. But I have, of course, got and followed the story about the Swiss referee, and most of all about the way he was harassed afterwards. Among other things, apparently about 16000 e-mails blocked his business for days! It shows what certain media can do, manipulating people instead of giving them objective information. But this was only just a particulaly obvious example. It's really frightening. Thus, the discussions about the objectivity of certain reviews in the birdwatching press are mere peanuts!

Robert

[Swissboy]

Actually, I personally believe it's scopes more than binoculars that have made a quantum leap.

Hermann
(getting off his soap box)

You are probably right about this, but as you mentioned, it is also a question of zoom eyepieces and of weight reduction that makes a big difference. In fact, recently, my wife used her old porro binoculars again, and afterwards she claimed that these were much heavier than what she had had. Which shows that one can get accustomed to things like weight to a certain degree.

Robert

[Pinewood]

Agreed.
You can keep your Nikons/leicas/Swaros etc etc.

Chris,

Actually, I want to keep neither my Nikon nor my Swarovski glasses, but the Leica and Leitz glasses are another story. I would guess that Zeiss, which is a huge optical and engineering firm, followed by Leica and Nikon, should be at the forefront of optical innovation. Please keep in mind that sports optics are only a small part of the Zeiss, Nikon and Leica optical output. Leica makes cameras, microscopes and measuring devices, while Zeiss has experince in just about everything optical. I would also guess that Swarovski technology is mostly licensed from other firms.

Happy birding,
Arthur Pinewood

[Jonathan B.]

[Guess I'll never fondle the beautiful packaging of the Ultravid BL: persistent feedback about CA and focus mechanism leaves me unsettled. Optics come first.]

Rico,

I suggest you handle the Ultravid before accepting those criticisms. I have used the Ultravid 7x42 heavily for six months. The focus mechanism was a bit rough when I bought it, but it is now smooth. I am almost unable to get the binocular to exhibit CA. The Ultravid was the first roof prism model whose optical qualities matched my Nikon SE 8x32, and I spent more than three years comparing every high-end binocular on the market against the SE. I don't doubt that the Zeiss Victory FL will match the Ultravid across the board, but the Ultravid is amazingly sharp, has superb color fidelity, excellent contrast, flat field, and great ergonomics.

By the way, I handled the Ultravid BL and considered it more a beautiful novelty than a serious birding glass. Its handling is nowhere near as good as the BR.

[Curtis Croulet]

Funny, just today I finally had a chance to try out a Leica Ultravid 8x42 and test it against my own Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42. The EORPC cost $379. The shop where I looked at the Ultravid had it "on sale" at $1345. I spent at least 1/2 hr, maybe more, comparing the two. The staff were happy to let me take as long as I wished. My conclusion: $1K doesn't buy much! The Ultravid's field of view, both apparent and real, was significantly wider than my EORPC. But the Ultravid's image was no sharper and no brighter and the colors were no truer, and the focus of the Ultravid was much rougher than the EORPC. I found that it was best to use both index fingers to control the focus of the Ultravid, otherwise, the roughness made it hard to achieve precision focus on the first try. The Ultravid doesn't focus as close as the EORPC, either, but that's a lesser fault. Eye relief was good. Since I was actually hoping to find a way to justify premium bins, I tried to find some area (other than FOV) where the Ultravid was superior to my lowly Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class, but I could not. They're fine binoculars, but not $1000 better. I hope the Zeiss Victory FL is better than this!

[Curtis Croulet]

Oh, I did check for "play" in the Ultravid's focus. There may have been a tiny, tiny bit of play, but nothing I would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it. On this score, the Ultravid is OK.

[hinnark]

Since I was actually hoping to find a way to justify premium bins, I tried to find some area (other than FOV) where the Ultravid was superior to my lowly Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class, but I could not. They're fine binoculars, but not $1000 better. I hope the Zeiss Victory FL is better than this!

Curtis,

I don´t know your Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class. But in sunny weather also cheap binoculars seems to be quite good. Premium bins show their performance in difficult circumstances of view: bad weather, fog, dawn, back light and so on. But in California these kind of weather conditions are pretty infrequent, aren´t they? So if you are satisfied with your old bino you are a lucky one. I have tried a lot of different binoculars of each price range over the years and I can confirm that in optics the sentence "you get for what you pay" is true in general. For me only Swarovski has left this state with their EL binos and ATS/STS scopes. I am mentioning this because I´m afraid that other companies could follow Swarovski on this way which in the end would be fatal for the customers. Of course the last 30 percent of performance causes 70 percent of the costs or so. This is not only a phenomenon in optics but in a lot of technical areas. The premium brands are quite equal in optical performance. Although I found the Victory FLs on the top now I would say they perform no wonders comparing to the Leica Ultravid.

Steve

[Leif]

Funny, just today I finally had a chance to try out a Leica Ultravid 8x42 and test it against my own Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42. The EORPC cost $379. The shop where I looked at the Ultravid had it "on sale" at $1345. I spent at least 1/2 hr, maybe more, comparing the two. The staff were happy to let me take as long as I wished. My conclusion: $1K doesn't buy much! The Ultravid's field of view, both apparent and real, was significantly wider than my EORPC. But the Ultravid's image was no sharper and no brighter and the colors were no truer, and the focus of the Ultravid was much rougher than the EORPC. I found that it was best to use both index fingers to control the focus of the Ultravid, otherwise, the roughness made it hard to achieve precision focus on the first try. The Ultravid doesn't focus as close as the EORPC, either, but that's a lesser fault. Eye relief was good. Since I was actually hoping to find a way to justify premium bins, I tried to find some area (other than FOV) where the Ultravid was superior to my lowly Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class, but I could not. They're fine binoculars, but not $1000 better. I hope the Zeiss Victory FL is better than this!

Curtis: Just to second the excellent answer by Steve/Hinnark, the Leica SHOULD provide a noticeably brighter image in low light. (I say SHOULD because I have not tried the EORPC, so I am going by my experience with other similarly priced binoculars.) One of the costs in producing a Schmidt Pechan roof prism binocular is the mirror coatings. Less expensive binoculars have less efficient coatings and hence there is greater light loss. Top grade items such as the Leica Ultravid have high quality so-called dielectric coatings that probably reflect >98% of the incident light at each surface. However I suspect that there are noticeable differences in the efficiency of the coatings even between the top makes.

[jad29]

Chris is correct. I did a similiar comparison over a weeks time. I bought the 8x42 ultravids and just to have something for comparison I also ordered the EO 8x32 rangers, in all but near dark, and nightime condtions the EO were sharper in every compaison, every test, it had nothing to do with weather (its all about the light right?), just all things considered the little cheaper binoculars were better in some important respects, which given the price difference is ridiculous. I had not intention of keeping the EO rangers when I ordered them. The ultravids had a flatter field and more solid build, but for me resolving detail shouldn't be sacrificed. On the 8x42 verisons all the japanese glass suffers from narrow field of view that really makes then a unattractive choice.

I agree with others, spending a extra $600 on a set of binoculars buys much less then spending that extra $600 on a spotting scope.

[Curtis Croulet]

Steve, thanks for your comments. It's true -- although we get clouds sometimes, it was a sparkling sunny day when I tried out the Leicas. I sometimes think about the endless dreary days my ancestors from Germany, France (my name is French) and England must have endured. I'll be looking at more bins in the coming weeks, and I'll probably go back to try the Leicas again. In the meantime, the shop where I looked at the Leicas also had a Coronado 40 mm H-alpha scope for only $1695, and they have them in stock! It's hard to justify new bins over something like that.

BTW, maybe it's because I'm red-green "color deficient" (i.e., color blind), but CA is much adoo about very little IMHO. Sometimes I think I can see a bit of in my Eagle Optics bins (bare branches against the sky), but it's irrelevant in normal use. CA is a non-issue with the Leicas, for me anyway.

[Hermann]

BTW, maybe it's because I'm red-green "color deficient" (i.e., color blind), but CA is much adoo about very little IMHO. Sometimes I think I can see a bit of in my Eagle Optics bins (bare branches against the sky), but it's irrelevant in normal use. CA is a non-issue with the Leicas, for me anyway.

I'm not sure, actually. IMO any CA, whether it bothers you or not, costs some contrast, and any loss of contrast means that it becomes more difficult to see, for instance, minute markings in the plumage of a bird. In other words: When you compare two otherwise identical optics, one with very little and the other with a reasonable amount of CA, there will be some difference in the small structures. Often it won't matter, at least not at low magnifications (magnifications above 35x or so are a totally different matter!), in others it may well matter.

I first realized this when I compared the Leica Apo with the Leica Televid years ago. I had both Leicas for a time, and the difference was clearly there, and not just at high magnifications. It was clearly visible in the field even at 20x. OK, with low magnifications like the ones we're talking about here the difference will be a lot smaller, but it's there.

Hermann

[Curtis Croulet]

I can easily see the difference in CA between a cheap scope and an expensive scope. The difference between my $379 binoculars and the Leica Ultravid is not of this degree, if there's any difference at all.

[Leif]

I can easily see the difference in CA between a cheap scope and an expensive scope. The difference between my $379 binoculars and the Leica Ultravid is not of this degree, if there's any difference at all.

I think most of the time CA is not obvious in 8x binoculars, though as Hermann says, it is there and does have an affect albeit subtle. It can change colours, with white becoming purple for example, making an id harder. But when looking at a bird in flight against a bright sky I can see obvious yellow and/or red colour fringing around the bird in most binoculars. In one or two expensive binoculars the bird looks like it has a bright purple companion and I find this aesthetically unappealing.

[Swissboy]

I would also guess that Swarovski technology is mostly licensed from other firms.
Arthur Pinewood

I would guess that your guess is wrong. But maybe there is someone on this board who knows more?

Robert

[hinnark]

I think most of the time CA is not obvious in 8x binoculars, though as Hermann says, it is there and does have an affect albeit subtle. It can change colours, with white becoming purple for example, making an id harder. But when looking at a bird in flight against a bright sky I can see obvious yellow and/or red colour fringing around the bird in most binoculars. In one or two expensive binoculars the bird looks like it has a bright purple companion and I find this aesthetically unappealing.

I found that best living test object to detecting CA among European birds is Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta. Especially under high fog and bright light weather conditions at the same time one can see clearly CA - violett or purple lines beneath the black lines in its plumage - even with some of the very high prized binos. But other birds with high contrasts like White stork, Oystercatcher etc. are also eligible.

Steve

[Curtis Croulet]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

[Jonathan B.]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

I can think of at least one reason why the Leica might be worth the difference in price. I own the Ultravid 7x42, which can resolve pine needles at a quarter mile. I used an EORPC 8x42 for a few hours one day, and the eye strain caused by it was terrible. I can use the Leica for six or eight hours continuously and experience no eyestrain at all. I did not consider the EORPC's resolution to be nearly as good as either the Ultravid or the Nikon SE, both of which I use constantly and consider optically superb.

[Curtis Croulet]

My 8x42 EORPC has been my constant companion for two years. I have not experienced any eye strain. Perhaps yours was miscollimated. The central resolution of my 8x42 EORPC is equal to that of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 I tested, acknowledging that the Leica's field of view is greater. I tried and tried to find some situation where the EORPC fell behind the Leica in resolution, brightness or color, but I found none. OTOH, the focus of the EORPC is smooth, as is that of my wife's Minolta, whereas that of the Leica has a tiny bit of friction that must be overcome before it starts to turn. I found precision focus to be something of a trial. Whatever else one may say about the Leica's performance, I have a hard time accepting such a focus mechanism in a binocular this expensive. Makes you wonder if it was frozen into its production configuration before it was fully tested. I'll be looking at the Leica again, just to see if I feel differently, but I'm eager to see the new Zeiss before I buy anything.

[hinnark]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

Curtis,

the reason for that could be that you wasn´t close enough to that bird when watching it with the bino, so you couldn´t see any details proper anyway. I was watching avocets out of a birding hide for distances of about 10-50 m.
For the price of a Swarovski ATS 65 HD you could buy much favourable scopes that don´t rank much behind the Swaro or equals it - Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Kowa, Pentax. Even the Minox MD 62 W ED is an amazing good working scope for just 1/5 of the price of the Swaro. In fact you could buy a complete high end quality birding equipment for the price. For example a Zeiss Diascope 65 FL together with a Nikon 8x32 Venturer (HG) could be the dream of every birder for many years. But everyone as he likes it. But perhaps this bino you mentioned is a little piece of wonder?

Steve

[michaelboustead]

I found that best living test object to detecting CA among European birds is Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta. Especially under high fog and bright light weather conditions at the same time one can see clearly CA - violett or purple lines beneath the black lines in its plumage - even with some of the very high prized binos. But other birds with high contrasts like White stork, Oystercatcher etc. are also eligible.

Steve

Is CA less of a problem if you bird with low magnification? I own a Zeiss 65mm and use a 23x eyepiece? Never really noticed CA, but I don't look for it either I guess.

I use 8x bino's and I am interested in the Zeiss 7x42FL.

Mike

[Curtis Croulet]

I'm missing your point, hinnark. I tested scopes, not binoculars, on the American Avocet, and, later, other shorebirds and waterfowl. This was in the winter of 2002-2003. There was a big difference between the cheap scope ($299) and the Swarovski that I bought (about $1700 with tripod). My conclusion: an expensive scope is a big improvement over a cheap scope. Swarovski vs. other high-end scopes is not in argument here. Now, roll forward to July 2004. I directly compared my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 ($379) to a Leica Ultravid 8x42 ($1345). Except for field of view, the Leica was not superior to the EORPC in this particular test, and, in one respect (focus), the Leica fell short. My conclusion: Leica Ultravid binoculars are only a slight (if any) improvement over some models of cheap binoculars. Maybe another test would reveal a difference in favor of the Leica that I didn't see on this occasion. Maybe I'd see a big difference if I let both of them fall to a hard floor. Maybe another sample of the EORPC would fail miserably. Certainly Jonathan's comments suggest that possibility. One other thing: I'm 59. Perhaps a younger birder would see a difference that I cannot see.

[Andy Bright]

Two full production Zeiss 10X42 FL's are in the hands of BF as of today. I'll update over the next few days but there seems no optical differences between these and the pre-production models I tried in April, the eyecups now have a more substantial and positive feel to them but that seems about it.

I'm happy to reiterate my previous findings, in that these binoculars show less central CA than any other RP design... in addition to this, they show no noticable colour bias. I'll have more time now to ascertain how bright the image is from the 10x model, notably in comparison to the Swaro' 10x EL.

[Curtis Croulet]

Andy, did you receive a complete kit -- case, strap, caps, booklet? What's that stuff like?

[Steve]

Curtis Yes we did recieve the complete kit, I have to say it is all very nice, anyone passing my door is welcome to drop in for a trial. I have the 10x42. And They will be on the stand for members to look at, at the Birdfair.

[Andy Bright]

Andy, did you receive a complete kit -- case, strap, caps, booklet? What's that stuff like?
Hi Curtis,
The objective caps are the same as the Swaro EL's, the ocular rainguard is rubber jointed. Bino strap is padded but not quite as springy as some. The bino padded carry case is very nice, touch of Lowepro about it with internal zipped pouch for whatever, clip-on strap with small padded section. Also added was a Zeiss lens cleaning cloth.
On this evenings viewing, the 10x Fl definitely shows a more contrasty image vs the EL ...amazingly, making the Swaro binos look slightly flat in comparison.

Regards,
Andy

[mpedris]

I'll have more time now to ascertain how bright the image is from the 10x model, notably in comparison to the Swaro' 10x EL.Andy,

Any chance you could compare the FL to a Nikon 10x42 SE? I'm interested in optical performance only.

Thanks.

[marcus]

Hey Steve,
Are you going to give a good, BVD type description of the FLs you've got, and maybe some pictures? That would be nice!
marcus

[Steve]

Marcus I have been out with them this evening, I cant see what all the fuss is about
Everything looks miles away.

[Steve]

Ok Things are much better now I looked through the right end ;)

Here is a pic, Please direct any questions to andy !!

[Pileatus]

I'm interested in a few technical aspects of the Zeiss FL.

What's the IPD range?
How much useable eye relief is available?
Last, but most important, are they as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon SE?

Thanks for any and all observations.

John

[Jonathan B.]

OTOH, the focus of the EORPC is smooth, as is that of my wife's Minolta, whereas that of the Leica has a tiny bit of friction that must be overcome before it starts to turn. I found precision focus to be something of a trial. Whatever else one may say about the Leica's performance, I have a hard time accepting such a focus mechanism in a binocular this expensive.

You are right that the Leica's focus mechanism is disappointing. With regular use mine has become much smoother. I formerly used two opposing fingers for fine focusing, but no longer need to. When reversing focus from very near to infinity or vice versa, there is resistance that must be overcome. I will be curious to see if this also loosens with use. My Nikon SE has a butter-smooth focus with no backlash or slack; its only disadvantage is that it stiffens in cold weather. But in summer it is the finest focus mechanism of anything I have ever handled.

[Curtis Croulet]

Jonathan, you've hit on something that may help to separate the good from the wonderful. The focus of my EORPC, although smooth as I described, is, shall we say, a bit "heavy." And it is very much influenced by the ambient temperature, becoming more free in hot weather, heavier in cool weather. As a test, I intentionally put the EORPC in the fridge for a few hours, and it became very stiff and heavy. How about your Ultravid?

[Andy Bright]

I'm interested in a few technical aspects of the Zeiss FL.

What's the IPD range?
How much useable eye relief is available?
Last, but most important, are they as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon SE?

Thanks for any and all observations.

John
ipd range is 54-76mm, 16mm eye-relief (although not stated in literature with the binos). I only have experience of the 8X32 SE binos, so cannot give a realistic comparison.
Last night's use indicated marginally improved low-light performance vs the Swarovski 10x42EL .... but it was a very close call with just a few minutes in it.
Another point, the initially stiff focus wheel has loosened up very quickly with use (which is generally the case with most new binos anyway)

[hinnark]

I'm interested in a few technical aspects of the Zeiss FL.


Last, but most important, are they as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon SE?

Thanks for any and all observations.

John

Hi John,

the Zeiss FL are even as contrasty as the 10x42 Nikon SE. But you have much more brightness, noticeable more FOV and less CA. That´s it.

Steve

[Leif]

Hi John,

the Zeiss FL are even as contrasty as the 10x42 Nikon SE. But you have much more brightness, noticeable more FOV and less CA. That´s it.

Steve

I am curious about the resolution of the Zeiss FL. Use of a low dispersion element reduces both chromatic and spherical aberrations and so might be expected to increase resolution. That said, top notch binoculars of this kind pretty much provide all the resolution my eyes can use anyway, so this aspect might be of academic interest only.

[Leif]

Jonathan, you've hit on something that may help to separate the good from the wonderful. The focus of my EORPC, although smooth as I described, is, shall we say, a bit "heavy." And it is very much influenced by the ambient temperature, becoming more free in hot weather, heavier in cool weather. As a test, I intentionally put the EORPC in the fridge for a few hours, and it became very stiff and heavy. How about your Ultravid?

Looks like the EORPC is not suitable for birding in the fridge then. Did you check for CA around last nights left overs?

One thing I noticed when I borrowed a friend's Pentax 8x42 DCF WP was that the hinge was loose. I wonder if this is a characteristic of the less expensive binoculars - i.e. not as mechanically sound - or just his sample?

[marcus]

Ok Things are much better now I looked through the right end ;)

Here is a pic, Please direct any questions to andy !!
Thanks a lot Steve.

[Jonathan B.]

Jonathan, you've hit on something that may help to separate the good from the wonderful. The focus of my EORPC, although smooth as I described, is, shall we say, a bit "heavy." And it is very much influenced by the ambient temperature, becoming more free in hot weather, heavier in cool weather. As a test, I intentionally put the EORPC in the fridge for a few hours, and it became very stiff and heavy. How about your Ultravid?

Curtis, the focus on the Ultravid is unaffected by temperature, behaving the same under all conditions that I have subjected it to. I expected to feel at least a slight difference, especially in winter when I would take them from indoors to below freezing conditions, but that is not the case.

[Curtis Croulet]

Curtis, the focus on the Ultravid is unaffected by temperature, behaving the same under all conditions that I have subjected it to. I expected to feel at least a slight difference, especially in winter when I would take them from indoors to below freezing conditions, but that is not the case.

This is something you'd never know from an in-store test. Score one for Leica over Eagle Optics.

[Curtis Croulet]

Looks like the EORPC is not suitable for birding in the fridge then. Did you check for CA around last nights left overs?

One thing I noticed when I borrowed a friend's Pentax 8x42 DCF WP was that the hinge was loose. I wonder if this is a characteristic of the less expensive binoculars - i.e. not as mechanically sound - or just his sample?

I have no complaint with my EORPC on this ground. The hinge is fine, and I've had no problems whatsoever with its mechanical construction.

[hinnark]

Is CA less of a problem if you bird with low magnification? I own a Zeiss 65mm and use a 23x eyepiece? Never really noticed CA, but I don't look for it either I guess.

I use 8x bino's and I am interested in the Zeiss 7x42FL.

Mike

Mike,

I´ve often noticed, that higher magnification increases CA. Examples I´ve seen are: Canon 18x50 IS shows more than 15x50, Leica 10x32 Trinovid BN more than 8x32, Swarovski 10x42 EL more than 8,5x42. I didn´t compare Zeiss Diascope 65 with 85 in this respect but see my advice here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=183157#post183157

Steve

[birder]

Hi Andy - thanks for your work on the FLs so far. I'm anxious to get hold of a pair, as I'm off to Greenland and Iceland for three weeks soon. I won't be at the Birdfair - any idea when they may 'hit the shelves' - I'm in Norfolk.

I currently use a very well used (and much loved) pair of 10x40 BGAT*Ps, and the FLs sound like a majpr leap forward - especially the close focussing. I was mainly a birder when I bought my BGAT*Ps, but now have 'evolved' into an insect lover as well. You can usually spot me in a crowd looking at a butterfly or dragonfly - I'm the one walking BACKWARDS to focus, while everyone else is moving FORWARDS!

Kevin

ipd range is 54-76mm, 16mm eye-relief (although not stated in literature with the binos). I only have experience of the 8X32 SE binos, so cannot give a realistic comparison.
Last night's use indicated marginally improved low-light performance vs the Swarovski 10x42EL .... but it was a very close call with just a few minutes in it.
Another point, the initially stiff focus wheel has loosened up very quickly with use (which is generally the case with most new binos anyway)

[Andy Bright]

Hi Andy - thanks for your work on the FLs so far. I'm anxious to get hold of a pair, as I'm off to Greenland and Iceland for three weeks soon. I won't be at the Birdfair - any idea when they may 'hit the shelves' - I'm in Norfolk.

I currently use a very well used (and much loved) pair of 10x40 BGAT*Ps, and the FLs sound like a majpr leap forward - especially the close focussing. I was mainly a birder when I bought my BGAT*Ps, but now have 'evolved' into an insect lover as well. You can usually spot me in a crowd looking at a butterfly or dragonfly - I'm the one walking BACKWARDS to focus, while everyone else is moving FORWARDS!

Kevin
Thanks Kevin,
I'm not too sure if there is a definitive release date in the U.K, I'd guess early August. I'm absolutely positive you won't be disappointed if you purchased the FL's. I can almost focus on my feet.... but i am 6ft 4 ;)
regards,
Andy

[John Cantelo]

A conspiracy theorist might just be worried that whilst the Zeiss website now has details of the FLs (at last!), it only has them in German and that the English version omits them (or did when I looked. Also, now I know Andy Bright is 6' 4" I will try to make sure I'm very polite to him and about his postings ......
John

[mak]

A conspiracy theorist might just be worried that whilst the Zeiss website now has details of the FLs (at last!), it only has them in German and that the English version omits them (or did when I looked. Also, now I know Andy Bright is 6' 4" I will try to make sure I'm very polite to him and about his postings ......
John

They are now shown on the English version. They show the name Victory FL, but apparently the UK will not be using the Victory name, simply Zeiss FL.

[Pileatus]

They are now shown on the English version. They show the name Victory FL, but apparently the UK will not be using the Victory name, simply Zeiss FL.


Please post the link since I cannot find them on the zeiss.com website. The opening page does, however, announce the Victory II.
http://www.zeiss.com/us/home.nsf

I am always amazed when huge companies fail to keep their websites in tune with their product lines.

John

[Jonathan B.]

Please post the link since I cannot find them on the zeiss.com website. The opening page does, however, announce the Victory II.
http://www.zeiss.com/us/home.nsf

I am always amazed when huge companies fail to keep their websites in tune with their product lines.

John

The information on the Zeiss site is available in English. Go to the homepage and choose "Germany," and on the next screen at top right, choose "English." On subsequent pages choose "Observing," and then "Sports Optics." On the next page you will find the FL at the bottom of the column on the left.

Perhaps they have not incorporated this into the UK and US sites because it is not readily available there/here?

[marcus]

Back


High performance in an easy-to-use format:
Victory 7x42 T* FL, Victory 8x42 T* FL and Victory 10x42 T* FL.

The new Victory FL binoculars are marked by high performance in every category.
The optics were constructed using special lenses with abnormal partial dispersion (FL) and leave no stone unturned.
Perfect, super achromatic correction limits residual image errors to an absolute minimum and provides the user with a practically razor-sharp, color-neutral, brilliant and high-contrast image without color fringes.
High-eyepoint, wide-angle eyepieces expand the image to 150m at 1000m with the 7x42 T* FL, 135m with the 8x42 T* FL and 110m with the 10x42 T* FL and provide a complete field of view, even when wearing eyeglasses. The rotating eyecups lock in four positions for individual adjustment of the individual eye relief.
Abbe-König prisms and the world-famous Carl Zeiss T* multi-coating deliver transmission of more than 90% in the spectral range most useful to the eye.
Lightweight and easy to use: the new Victory FL models weigh in between 755g and 775g.
The housing, made of a fiber-reinforced polymer, magnesium objective lens tubes and the easy-to-grasp rubber armoring provide the necessary robustness.
Water proof – leak test per ISO 9022-8 – and nitrogen filled to withstand the elements.
The Dual Drive – only one focusing knob for the middle drive and diopter adjustment – is ideal even for small hands or when wearing gloves.
The middle drive is designed as a quick focus. Only one turn is needed for "far" to "near", enabling observers to quickly reach their "targets".
Accessories: eyepiece and objective lens protective cover, broad carrying strap and Cordura bag with belt loop and carrying strap included in delivery; stand holder in preparation.
10 year guarantee with worldwide service.
Victory FL: compact, lightweight, all-round binoculars, which meet even the highest standards – for nature-observance, hunting, birdwatching, expeditions and research trips or simply to see more of the world.

For technical details please see:

Victory 7x42 T* FL
Victory 8x42 T* FL
Victory 10x42 T* FL

The Victory FL is deliverable from July 2004 – via eye-care professionals, photo stores and specialized stores for hunting needs.

To overview

To top


I tried to send some of what Jonathan mentioned.
marcus

[Pileatus]

The information on the Zeiss site is available in English. Go to the homepage and choose "Germany," and on the next screen at top right, choose "English." On subsequent pages choose "Observing," and then "Sports Optics." On the next page you will find the FL at the bottom of the column on the left.

Perhaps they have not incorporated this into the UK and US sites because it is not readily available there/here?


Thank you.

Now, for some old news.
http://www.zeiss.de/41256AFB004A4E21/WebViewTopNewsAllE/7D14941DE03636B985256D8A004CC968?OpenDocument
Stephen Ingraham, of BVD fame, works for Zeiss. So, who's going to give us the reviews BVD was famous for?

I'm glad Steve works for Zeiss for 2 reasons.
1. He turned me on to the Nikon SE and I, therefore, trust his opinion. It took a lot of guts to so strongly promote a little porro in a sea of big-named roofs.
2. I'm looking for a totally waterproof roof prism and the Zeiss FL looks like it may be the one I'm after. Hopefully, Steve had critical input in the design and finish of the FL.

Now that Steve works for Zeiss, we'll have to look elsewhere for truly unbiased opinions. What a nightmare that is!

Can anyone say, "The FL is optically better than that little porro everyone raves about...”

John

[Pileatus]

ipd range is 54-76mm, 16mm eye-relief (although not stated in literature with the binos). I only have experience of the 8X32 SE binos, so cannot give a realistic comparison.
Last night's use indicated marginally improved low-light performance vs the Swarovski 10x42EL .... but it was a very close call with just a few minutes in it.
Another point, the initially stiff focus wheel has loosened up very quickly with use (which is generally the case with most new binos anyway)


Andy,

First, thanks for all your efforts. An honest, in-depth evaluation of the FL will be appreiciated by many.

I own the SE 8X32 and love it. I'm seriously looking for a waterproof roof and I'd appreciate it if you could compare the eye relief on the FL to the SE. Yes, I wear eye glasses.

I really liked the Leica Ultravid view until I discovered Leica reduced its effective eye relief by recessing the eyepiece more than I thought necessary. It was easy to see the problem when I compared a Trinovid to the Ultravid...they simply changed a great design to the detriment of eyeglass wearers. Ever since, I've been very suspicious of published eye relief numbers, so a hands-on evaluation of the FL by you would be most appreciated!

BTW, what power are you evaluating?

Thanks
John

[mpedris]

Now, for some old news.
http://www.zeiss.de/41256AFB004A4E2...68?OpenDocument
Stephen Ingraham, of BVD fame, works for Zeiss...
John,

Unfortunately, the link you posted does not work. Can you please verify and post the correct link?

Thanks.

[Pileatus]

John,

Unfortunately, the link you posted does not work. Can you please verify and post the correct link?

Thanks.


I corrected it in the original and here it is for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.zeiss.de/41256AFB004A4E21/WebViewTopNewsAllE/7D14941DE03636B985256D8A004CC968?OpenDocument

Goto Google and search on
+ingraham +zeiss
for more

[mpedris]

Thank you. Got it.

That news item is dated 8/8/2003. However, BVD was updated on 3/2/2004. So, if Steve is no longer associated with reviews at BVD, who updated the site with the review of the Pentax DCF SP, well after Steve started working for Zeiss?

[henry link]

Origionally posted by John Traynor:
"Now that Steve works for Zeiss, we'll have to look elsewhere for truly unbiased opinions. What a nightmare that is!"


You really won't have to look any further than this forum. There is just as much or more unbiased and well informed opinion here as at BVD, and I say that as a Stephen Ingraham fan. I was an early BVD subscriber (back in the printed pamphlet days) and had many enjoyable phone conversations with him on the subject of optics; so I know for a fact that he puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

[Curtis Croulet]

When I recently tested the Leica Ultravid 8x42 (see my comments earlier in this thread), I paid particular attention to eye relief, since, in my old age, I wear glasses. For me the eye relief was fine; I was easily able to see the entire field.

[pduxon]

Stephen Ingraham, of BVD fame, works for Zeiss. So, who's going to give us the reviews BVD was famous for?



You could do worse than check out the Alula reviews. There are scope reviews on there website and they did, imo, a good round-up of 10x bins pre FLs.

[Pileatus]

When I recently tested the Leica Ultravid 8x42 (see my comments earlier in this thread), I paid particular attention to eye relief, since, in my old age, I wear glasses. For me the eye relief was fine; I was easily able to see the entire field.


About a year ago I tested an Ultravid and a Trinovid (both 8X42) side by side and there was a difference in usable ER. Even the clerk noticed it, so I will check again on new stock. Maybe they made a change because both models listed the same eye relief value, fov, etc.

BTW...the Trinovid was fine and I put it on my list with the Swarovski SLC 7X42 which, at 19mm ER, was really comfortable on the eyes. I wish manufacturers would just go high on ER and let the user adjust the eyecups to suit their pleasure. 20mm seems about right.

Just goes to show you better try them before you buy them.

[mike60]

Spoke with Zeiss in Syd last week, and the FL will only be available locally in 10 weeks - early Oct I expect. Zeiss told me that they were already aware of the good reviews/feedback the FLs are starting to get. I hope thats not an excuse to charge exorbitant prices and turn many potential customers away.
A few questions - Any appraisal of the case/bag suppplied with these bins?. How does the FL price compare with the 8,5x42 Swaro, or 8x42 Ultravid? Please be patient with me if I am covering old ground.

[mak]

I liked the Leica Ultravid view until I discovered Leica reduced its effective eye relief by recessing the eyepiece more than I thought necessary. It was easy to see the problem when I compared a Trinovid to the Ultravid...they simply changed a great design to the detriment of eyeglass wearers. Ever since, I've been very suspicious of published eye relief numbers, so a hands-on evaluation of the FL by you would be most appreciated!BTW, what power are you evaluating?
Thanks
John

The eye relief on all 3 FL models is 16mm. Binoculars with an eye relief of 15mm should give spectacle wearers a full field of view. The FL's come with high eyepoint eyepieces, with 4 various settings (still 16mm ER). This could be an advantage for spectacle wearers as frames and lens come in differing sizes. Even non spectacle wearers whose own facial dimensions are different (deep set eyes etc) can benefit from the 4 settings available.

[Pileatus]

Thanks Kevin,
I'm not too sure if there is a definitive release date in the U.K, I'd guess early August. I'm absolutely positive you won't be disappointed if you purchased the FL's. I can almost focus on my feet.... but i am 6ft 4 ;)
regards,
Andy


Andy,

Are you going to do a comprehensive evaluation of the FL's? I think people are especially interested in knowing how it compares to the EL, Ultravid, HG, and the old Classics. I want to know how it compares (optically) to the SE 8X32.

My FL interests are:

Eye relief and IPD (seem OK based on specs)

Optics (sharpness ACROSS the field, any aberrations or is it a FLAT field view, contrast, coatings, CA, etc. as compared to the SE or the EL).

Collimation (are the ones you have perfectly collimated?) This will tell us something about quality control.

Focus control (does it allow for a nice, fine focus like the SE's, or is it too fast like the HG's?) Personally, I'll take a slower focus like the EL if I can fine tune it with ease once I'm on target. The SE is a tad slow but allows for an absolutely perfect final adjustment. How's the FL?

Weight and Handling characteristics.


TIA
John

[AlanFrench]

The eye relief on all 3 FL models is 16mm. Binoculars with an eye relief of 15mm should give spectacle wearers a full field of view. The FL's come with high eyepoint eyepieces, with 4 various settings (still 16mm ER). This could be an advantage for spectacle wearers as frames and lens come in differing sizes. Even non spectacle wearers whose own facial dimensions are different (deep set eyes etc) can benefit from the 4 settings available.

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.

Clear skies, Alan

[Leif]

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.

Clear skies, Alan

Part of the problem is that most companies seem to measure eye relief from the rear lens surface. However this is often recessed with respect to the end of the eye tube when in the down position. This explains why the Swift Audubin 8.5x44 has only about 13mm of true eye relief whereas the manufacturer quotes a lot more. I found the eye relief on the 8x42 FL to be excellent, though I wear small eyeglasses with thin lenses. However I was told that the eye tubes were prototypes. No doubt Andy Bright will have more pertinent comments to make. (A not so subtle hint!)

[Andy Bright]

I'll post something more useful in the next day or two. Eye relief is genuinely ample... I'm not a spectacle wearer but two pepole who are have commented that these binos provided excellent views.
Someone wanted me to compare to the SE's but I've only experienced the 8x32, so i just can't do a realistic comparison.

[Curtis Croulet]

Hey, Andy, don't you have every model of every brand of binocular on hand just so you can do these comparisons?

[Pileatus]

I'll post something more useful in the next day or two. Eye relief is genuinely ample... I'm not a spectacle wearer but two pepole who are have commented that these binos provided excellent views.
Someone wanted me to compare to the SE's but I've only experienced the 8x32, so i just can't do a realistic comparison.


Andy,

The SE comment is from me and I use the 8X32 SE also. That's my optical standard and, since you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. If the FL rises to the SE optical level, it will sell like hotcakes. If the practical ER is on par with the SE, I'll be happy with it.

Thanks for the comments on eye relief!

John

[mak]

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.
Clear skies, Alan

Alan.

I will stick to my comments with confidence. As far as how does a company measure eye relief, you too could do it. Perhaps I should say that as a general rule 15mm is sufficient for spectacle wearers to receive full field of view. High eyepoint eyepieces means eyepieces with eye relief suitable for spectacle wearers.

mak

[Jonathan B.]

Andy,

The SE comment is from me and I use the 8X32 SE also. That's my optical standard and, since you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. If the FL rises to the SE optical level, it will sell like hotcakes. If the practical ER is on par with the SE, I'll be happy with it.

Thanks for the comments on eye relief!

John

John,

Last autumn I submitted my comments to this forum on my comparison of SE 8x32 to Ultravid 7x42 and 8x42. After several years of looking for a roof-prism bino whose performance matched the SE, I found it in the Ultravid, which you should compare to the FL when it is available. I bought the 7x42, and every time I put it up to my eyes I am just as amazed as I am by the SE. I too am anxious to see the FL, but I predict that in many ways its optical performance will be almost indistinguishable from the Leica.

[Andy Bright]

I can confirm that the FL's present a full image to all three spectacle wearers that have used my 10x42's so far.... way ahead of the 10x42EL, ahead of the 10x42 Leica Ultravid and someone said marginally better than the Nikon HG's. I can't begin to comprehend the issues effecting spectacle wearers, so I'm really not the best person to comment on that.

What I can say is that, to my testers (birders) and myself, the 10x42 FL's outperform all the competition in terms of brightness and contrast of image (some achievement when both aspects negate eachother to some extent). Colour neutrality was total, with no colour cast detected by anyone. Sharpness and resolution was as good as anyone had seen in a pair of binos, though it was hard to seperate any of the leading RP binos here.
Everyone mentioned the impressive depth of field.

CA!! o.k., It can still crop up so hasn't be eradicated entirely, but the effects are minimal even when trying your very best to find it, one tester couldn't find any and he is usually the first to complain about CA ;) My own feeling was that CA was less than that of all other binos I have tried ... including that of the 8X32 Nikon SE's (that's the only time I'll refer to the SE's as I'm just not going to compare across magnifications, others have done that and paid the price). What CA presented itself did not spill over as far and had less of an effect on the subject than other models, this was agreed by all users.

I'm not going to bother with the meaningless optical performance of the peripheral edge of view, other than to say that the typical edge distortion isn't much different to any other bino and doesn't have any impact for the real world user.

As for non optical aspects:
There were no major complaints, one tester didn't like the feel of the rubber armouring and the grip ridges could've gone up to the eyepieces a bit further (helping grip by the focus wheel) but that was as much as i got in terms of negativity. Everyone liked the large, two finger wide, focus wheel, which had loosened up a bit since i first received the binos. The focus wheel fell easily to the fingers.

The feel of a bino is strictly down to each user, Zeiss seems to have taken the sensible route of not having any thumb recess/stops so no one should have a problem there. The ridged body will be handy for those wearing gloves on cold days.
In fact the whole appearance of the FL's seem to conjure up memories of distant Dialyts, certainly an improvement over the previous Victory models.... and someone tell Zeiss we don't need any silly triumphant macho names for our binos, FL will do very nicely.

The rapid focussing was liked by all. I must admit that I'd never lost any sleep over some of the slower focus wheel gearing of my Swaro' EL's, typical birding distances are covered by a 1/4 turn on most binos anyway but I'm getting the hang of these 'progessive focus' types, especially handy for tracking birds moving away or towards you. The focus wheel needs only travel from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock to cover almost every situation (5m to miles!)

The novel four position eyecups is a nice touch, I prefer the eye-cup just one click back from full extension. No one had a bad word to say about this feature, all feeling that having variable eyecup settings was a step forward in getting more people a perfect view... even if they have the facial features of a Klingon

Dipotre adjustment (Yawn) was fairly typical, a central click stop but infinite positions +/- 4dpt.

All the rest is pretty much specs that you can read anywhere, weight and all that.

In conclusion, these 10x FL's do seem to be top of the 10x pile at the moment but there's no huge leap in optical quality from the competitors... high end binos just aren't like that, there's no quantum leaps to be made... even when CA vanishes altogether it won't be a massive progression to most as it's just not a problem for most users now.

[Pinewood]

In conclusion, these 10x FL's do seem to be top of the 10x pile at the moment but there's no huge leap in optical quality from the competitors... high end binos just aren't like that, there's no quantum leaps to be made... even when CA vanishes altogether it won't be a massive progression to most as it's just not a problem for most users now.

Andy,

I am pleased to read your comments. I will take it that the mechanics of the other FL models will be the same: armour, focus wheel, eyecups, etc. Of course, I am awaiting some word about the optics of the seven and eight power glasses, but I guess that I won't expect anything extraordinary.

Have you put it in your fridge or submerged it in water? Seriously, I sometimes observe the heavens in really frigid weather, like -10 degree celsius, and I sometimes get caught in truly filthy weather.

Many thanks,
Arthur Pinewood

[Curtis Croulet]

Yes, Andy, please put them in the fridge and see how they do with the cold. Now, I live in Calif., and cold weather isn't a problem where I live (Arthur would laugh at what we call "cold"), but my Eagle Optics RPC can get pretty stiff even on what passes for a chilly day here, and I certainly expect to take my binos to the mountains and other snowy areas of the country. Otherwise, your review is great, particularly that it's not just your opinion, but that you had other people test them, too. Looking at the pictures, I too wondered why the ribbing didn't go back to the focus knob. I have to say that the Leica Ultravid are very similar in shape to my EORPC, even the thumb indents, and I've become very comfortable with the latter.

[Andy Bright]

Thanks guys,
I think I'll run them in for a bit longer before I subject them to the freezer test. Don't even think about asking me to stick them in the oven for half an hour to emulate desert temps ;)
They are fully submersible, but to what depth/pressure, I'm not sure.

[mak]

I hope Andy does not put his bins in the fridge. I would strongly advise anyone not to do this.

Is this the ruffled feathers thread.

[Steve]

Must admit it is a bit of a silly thing to do and no manufactorer would replace a pair from fridge damage.

[michaelboustead]

I hope Andy does not put his bins in the fridge. I would strongly advise anyone from doing this.

Is this the ruffled feathers thread.

I agree with MAK. I have birded in Minnesota in January and my binoculars were the least of my problems-cold feet, cold nose and eyeglasses frozen solid to name a few. Putting bino's in the freezer seems a little extreme to me.

Mike

[Curtis Croulet]

So, you guys are saying that although these binoculars are guaranteed into subfreezing temperatures, they might well be damaged, and the manufacturers won't even honor their warrantees. Based upon this, I'll stick with my Eagle Optics. They stiffened up, but they weren't damaged. And if they had been damaged, the warranty would cover it.

[Steve]

Curtis I had you down as a pretty sensible guy, The aircraft I fly is cert by Boeing to withstand wing stress to 5 times the maximum In manuals in a rapid decent, We dont test this theory passengers dont like it!! we take there word for it because we know All the tests were done before it got CAA FAA certs, Have I made my point ?

[Pileatus]

Can anyone explain why there are 3 different eye relief values reported for the FL on this website? I thought we were talking about 16mm across the range?

7X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4839
17.1mm

8X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4840
18.3mm

10X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4841
20.5mm

If the reported 20.5mm ER for the 10X is correct, it would explain why Andy reported great things about them.

[jad29]

WOW, What kind of damage would happen from the freezer, its beyond strange to even be worried about it. I would throw them in a bucket of water for a couple hrs also.

[Andy Bright]

Can anyone explain why there are 3 different eye relief values reported for the FL on this website? I thought we were talking about 16mm across the range?

7X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4839
17.1mm

8X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4840
18.3mm

10X
http://www.optics4birding.com/item.aspx?cid=4841
20.5mm

If the reported 20.5mm ER for the 10X is correct, it would explain why Andy reported great things about them.
They're good but not that good, I'd stick to the 16mm across the range that Zeiss state.

[Stumpy]

Interesting, Leif - the pricing will be someting to look for. Easy to guess, though!Hi ,

It will be interesting to see if the new Zeiss Victory FL binoculars can capture the hearts and eyes of the bird watching community.

My information is that they are very impressive optically but the polycarbonate construction and retro ribbing may put people off.

[Curtis Croulet]

Steve, the focus mechanism of my EORPC, the ones that are warranteed against anything, stiffens up when the temperature drops. The focus really gets stiff if the temp drops below freezing. Now, if I'm going to pay big bucks for a high-end glass, I want to see an improvement over what I have. One specific thing I want to know is, how are they going to handle cold weather? I consider my current glass to be deficient in this respect. As I write this, it's about 38C outside (100F), so the only way I can test cold-weather performance of bins is to stick them in the fridge. The average American fridge (not the freezer) runs at about, I think, 40F. IMHO, any binocular worth hanging on my neck should function and function well at this temperature, and, in fact, it should continue to function into the sub-freezing range. Leica Ultravid and Swaro EL function to -25C, according to the manufacturers' websites. Well, if it gets that cold, I'm not going to be outside looking for birds (being that I'm a wussy, quiche-eating, latte-drinking Californian), so I'm not looking for a test to the claimed limit. Andy -- you're excused from subjecting the Zeiss to -25C! But I do want to know how they'll do in a little chilly weather, such as you yourselves get in the UK at times. This isn't the equivalent of testing an airliner at full G with passengers aboard. I just want to know if the plane will handle ordinary turbulence. I've already been told that the Leica Ultravids handle cold weather just fine -- based upon the fridge (and freezer!) test. What about the Zeiss Victory FL? I find no specs for this on their website, BTW.

[Andy Bright]

Hi ,

It will be interesting to see if the new Zeiss Victory FL binoculars can capture the hearts and eyes of the bird watching community.

My information is that they are very impressive optically but the polycarbonate construction and retro ribbing may put people off.


I think the body is made from a polmer/alloy mix. In reality they feel as if they are metal.
It's sad but true that some birders go on styling ... sort of neck jewellry. On the other hand there's hope in that many on here have no qualms with the Nikon SE porros.
Personally i think the styling of the new FL's gives back some identity to Zeiss binos, like I said it's not dissimilar to the classics of old.