Laws of physics vs perception

[iebirdie]

Hi,
I have some misc thoughts going around in my head after trying out many bins in the last few months...

[1] 8x32 versus 8x42: Take any top brand 8x32. Compare it in the field with its 8x42 brother. There is no increase in magnification. The theory seems to be that the extra exit pupil is of no great advantage during the day (but admittedly it is in twilight). Assuming daytime use in various weather/light conditions, as opposed to twilight, will the 8x42 user clinch more ids in the field (particularly at longer distance) than the 8x32 user ? Feedback seems to say yes, but I don't really understand why... (there has been no mag increase and the extra exit pupil seems redundant...)

[The reason I ask is that I have an 8x32 (Leica BN) and have tried out a good few 8x42s of various brands. There is something about the 8x42 view which seems to show more detail, but am I imagining this ??? I'm not sure it's worth trading up for - although any excuses to invest in an 8x42 Ultravid gratefully received :-) ].

[2] Magnification: BVD and also this guy (http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/optics/optics5.html) believe that a 7-8 power (let's say 8 power) reveals as much of the bird as is required for an id in the majority of situations. Do you agree ? My own testing indicates the bird is smaller but, assuming good resolution bins, can be identified in 8 power bins in most situations. The lower hand shake of the 8 power also helps. But is it my imagination or are more and more birders opting for 10 power binoculars ? Is it perhaps that the 8 power gives you the id (usually) but the 10 power gives you the better view of the bird overall (from an enjoyment/appreciation perspective)?

[As an aside I have tried several 10 powers in the last while. To my eyes, the Swaro 10x42EL had a funny rotating globe effect I just could not get used to, and both it and the 10x42 ultravid I found hard to hold still. I know others have these bins but they just did not seem right for me. Interestingly the 10 power I could hold steadiest was the Victory II 10x40. I think if I was going for a 10 it would be this one. Very sharp and bright also. Did not detect chromatic aberration (for example, when compared to 8.5x42EL Swaro where some CA was immediately visible in the same view (top of building against the sky)). Not sure about the rubberised eyecups. I thought after 20 mins testing outside the shop the skin around my eye felt itchy, but maybe it's just me.

Apologies if this has all been done to death in previous posts, but I just thought I would chip it in FWIW...

Niall

[scampo]

7x = wider fov, greater dof, easiest to hold 'still', less focusing required, very bright image at dusk;
8-8.5x = a good compromise = the most popular mag. by far for birders (imo).
10x = narrower fov, smaller dof, harder to hold still, less bright - esp. good if you're young.

The idea that you can see more birds with one or the other is a bit odd: it depends how far away the bird is! I should think any half-decent birder would find id'ing a bird similar with any.

[marcus]

Scampo beat me. I was going to say what he did, that the most important factor about focusing on the bird is how far away the bird is.
Is that you singing in that picture, Scampo?

[scampo]

I can't sing in tune - and when I do my tone perfect musician of a son always points out my deficiencies! Kids!

It did seem to me that trying to define something as variable as watching a distant bird through a natural and polluted environment was asking a bit much of science and not enough of the imagination...

I think I'll change my avatar again - too conspicuous!

[JB in SC]

1.) All things being equal, the 40-42 objective should show more detail than the 30-32 objective. That's the physics part. Whether or not your eye can discern that detail is an unknown.

I recently gave up my Leica 8X32 BA for the 8X Ultravid and have no regrets. I personally feel that the image is better to my eyes.

2.) Eight power is sufficient for my uses, your mileage may vary. Lightweight tens are as easy to hold for most users as eights. The FOV, DOF, and relative brightness are the issues for me.

Some binoculars just feel right, some don't.

[scampo]

Hmm... a 10x cannot be at all as easy to hold still as a 7/8/8.5, surely? And it's somewhat less bright and narrower view will also work obviate against it allowing an easy location of the bird when compared with binoculars of lower power.

The amazing thing is that the eye itself has an objective lens that is tiny by comparison yet has quite an unusually high resolving power.

[iebirdie]

I do agree with that. All my tests indicate that an 8/8.5 can be held steadier in the field.
Niall

[Tero]

about the "funny rotating globe effect"

This seems to appear when the 10x binoculars are in the 30-40 range. I have 10x 25 pair and do not have that problem.

I also do not have any problem holding binoculars steady up to 12x power. I tend to favor light weight products. The huge 8x50 old fashioned porros that have been available always, the sort you see in old movies, are too heavy for me.

8x32 and 10x32 both work well for me. 10x has plenty of light (I'm 50, no youngster, wear bifocals) unless you go to a jungle. ;)

[scampo]

I can't really agree - at dusk (up here in the northern hemisphere at least), a 10x32 would be struggling in dull conditions. Havbing said that, the Nikon HG 10x32 seems to be an exception - it gives a stunningly bright image.

[iebirdie]

8x32 and 10x32 both work well for me. 10x has plenty of light (I'm 50, no youngster, wear bifocals) unless you go to a jungle. ;)

No doubt true in Missouri (St. Louis must be about 37 or 38 degrees N ?) but here in Dublin we are practically polar compared to that (just over 53 degrees N). IMO a 10x32 would be bad value here.

cheers
Niall

[Tero]

I have now the compromise binoculars under testing, Bushnell 7-15x zoom. The 7x does give more light. These are sort of fun to play with, as you can compare in practice how much light each amplification gives. But between the extremes, you only can guess what number you are using, they are not marked or indexed.

On a cloudy rainy day, I'm definitely at the 7x end!

[iebirdie]

I suppose I could summarise my original musings as follows:
Conventional wisdom suggests that you can see all of the bird you need, at whatever distance, using a top 8 power. Choosing a 10 power is a matter of personal preference and you probably will see a bit more of the bird, and possibly enjoy the view better (or not, depending on shake, depth of field etc).

But using the 10 power you will not id any more birds than using a top 8 power.
Anyone disagree ?

Niall

p.s. Anyone using the Victory II (8 or 10 power) and prepared to post a mini review ? It is hard to be critical of one's own binoculars, but would be interested in feedback. For example, I have read comments on the Victory II 10x40 that it suffers from (a) chromatic abberation (above the marginal normal in all roofs) and (b) its view is soft....

[Leif]

Hi,
I have some misc thoughts going around in my head after trying out many bins in the last few months...

..

Apologies if this has all been done to death in previous posts, but I just thought I would chip it in FWIW...

Niall

Niall: I tend to prefer an 8x42 glass to an 8x30 one, with the exception of the Nikon 8x32 SE which behaves like an 8x42 roof prism. There are numerous reasons, which I have tried to summarise:


Higher contrast, assuming other factors such as optical quality remain unchanged. In other words, colours look more vivid and pleasing.



Increased depth of field. To my eyes the Nikon 8x32 HG and Leica 8x32 BN have noticeably less DOF than their larger 8x42 cousins. This is the converse of photographic optics, where a larger aperture leads to less DOF.



Greater sharpness. The difference is subtle, but I notice it, especially when I'm in a hide and resting my elbows on a shelf. I did some tests and for me the difference in sharpness is worth having, as it can make a borderline id. However, if you have a scope, the difference will be less important.


Less chromatic aberration (sometimes). I've never seen a discussion of this, but to my eyes many mid-sized 8x32 roof prism binoculars have rather a lot of chromatic aberration. However, the Zeiss 8x30 has very little, so this does not seem to be a general rule.

[Leif]

p.s. Anyone using the Victory II (8 or 10 power) and prepared to post a mini review ? It is hard to be critical of one's own binoculars, but would be interested in feedback. For example, I have read comments on the Victory II 10x40 that it suffers from (a) chromatic abberation (above the marginal normal in all roofs) and (b) its view is soft....

Niall: I have never used the Zeiss 8x40 Victory II in the field so cannot comment, but here is a review:

http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews/zeiss%20victory.htm

(I think this is the Victory II.)

As you see it is quite favourable to the Zeiss, but does indeed mention slightly elevated CA wrt the Leica.

The only concern to me is that I heard from a salesman at InFocus that a Zeiss man visited and converted the strap attachment to the new version. So I'm not sure how to be certain that a sample is the one with the improved optics, rather than a modified old one.

[Swissboy]

Niall:http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews/zeiss%20victory.htm
(I think this is the Victory II.)



From the brief note added at the bottom of the specifications it is clear that the test was made with the first Victory version.

I do own this first version, and I would basically agree with the info given in that test. However there are two aspects that were not mentioned there:

1- the original Zeiss Victory version shows very much glare under certain backlight and high-contrast conditions. That point, apparently, has been taken care of in the Victory IIs by adding some internal baffling.

2- the rubbery coating looks rather worn after a while. This wear is much more severe than in any of the other top grade binoculars I know. Of course, this does not affect optical performance, but it certainly affects any potential buyer of a used model.

[Tero]

I actually started with some 12x binoculars we had for general use. I used them for over a year exclusively. They were not very good, but I just got used to them. Then getting a slightly better quality I went to the 10x as they were close to what I was used to. They were porros. Now I am thinking I want roof prism binoculars for some reason. Will compare 8x and 10x for my next pair.

So I will agree that the 12x was not what was needed, but I can work with 7x to 10x easily these days. 8x are fine, for me no real problem, and give good light. I have a slightly better time with hawks using 10x vs 8x, see more detail. Other birds generally no difference.

But back to Laws of physics vs perception, every slight detail makes a difference, as we are all looking at a bit of an unnantural view. Our eyes are not used to it. It is the same as getting new glasses.

[laika]

From the brief note added at the bottom of the specifications it is clear that the test was made with the first Victory version.

I do own this first version, and I would basically agree with the info given in that test. However there are two aspects that were not mentioned there:

1- the original Zeiss Victory version shows very much glare under certain backlight and high-contrast conditions. That point, apparently, has been taken care of in the Victory IIs by adding some internal baffling.

2- the rubbery coating looks rather worn after a while. This wear is much more severe than in any of the other top grade binoculars I know. Of course, this does not affect optical performance, but it certainly affects any potential buyer of a used model.

If you read both reviews of Zeiss Victory at www.betterviewdesried.com you can see that there have been at least 3 versions of these binocular.In the second version i understand the optics were improved. I'am not sure if the optics were further improved in Victory II.To make it more complicated Zeiss only call this version 3 Victory in Europe and Victory II in USA.

[iebirdie]

I checked out the Zeiss Victory 10x40 at the weekend in Dublin's main "serious" binocular shop. Some of the models had the "new" strap attachment, some the old. The clerk hadn't a clue and I was educating him. The boxes for the bins with the "new" attachments had a little red sticker on the outside but that may mean nothing. Otherwise, there was nothing to indicate it they were Victory, Victory improved or Victory II ! Also nothing to indicate if just a retrofit.

Certainly out in the street they were impressive, but if I have learned anything about bins it is that you just can't tell in the street, even if they look great in the street and you test them thoroughly. You need the 360 degree view in the field and field conditions to really see what they're like to use.

Given the uncertainties about the Zeiss Victory and its price I cannot really justify the risk. (This particular dealer is not into "take it home for a day and bring it back if you don't like it" - that's what a monopoly does for you I suppose).

I think I will hold off for another while, maybe I will get over to the UK in the near future to somewhere with more realistic viewing facilities and combine it with a day or two birding. Any of those near civilisation (e.g. London, Manchester, Bristol, Bermingham - somewhere with an airport ?)
cheers
Niall

[Leif]

Certainly out in the street they were impressive, but if I have learned anything about bins it is that you just can't tell in the street, even if they look great in the street and you test them thoroughly. You need the 360 degree view in the field and field conditions to really see what they're like to use.

I think I will hold off for another while, maybe I will get over to the UK in the near future to somewhere with more realistic viewing facilities and combine it with a day or two birding. Any of those near civilisation (e.g. London, Manchester, Bristol, Bermingham - somewhere with an airport ?)
cheers
Niall

I agree with your comments regarding evaluating binoculars. I would recommend trying a field day where a shop takes some kit to a reserve. Do you not get field days in Ireland? Also InFocus in the UK do allow you to return an item if purchased on the Internet. I suspect they will allow an exchange, but might not refund your money? They don't stock Leica though which is a major problem IMO. I once bought from one of their shops a compact binocular for my mother as a christmas present, and then went back a week later and exchanged it for a more expensive item. They were very helpful.

BTW The new Zeiss FL series are due out some time this year, and might offer the best view. (Good specs. and appearance, but untested.)

[iebirdie]

hi Leif,
Nope, no field days. There is really only one serious shop where they know anything about binoculars (from birder's perspectives) and they stock the main Swaros, Leicas, Zeiss etc. But they are camera people at heart, and not birders. (And the word "monopoly" springs to mind too). All they can tell you is that Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers. In my experience they don't really know why. When you mention chromatic aberration, depth of field, resolution etc. to them their eyes glaze over, and they repeat "Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers". You get the idea. Also, while they price match on Swaro you can pay Euro 200 or more extra for a Leica or Zeiss with them than going through the UK, even allowing for the exchange rate.
cheers
Niall

[laika]

iebirdie
Only the last version have the "new" attachement.
Still in doubt? Send a mail to Zeiss and ask them!

[scampo]

"All they can tell you is that Swarovski is the best for birdwatchers"...

Of course, that's code for "Swarovski makes us the most profit...".

(-:

[Tero]

Ask them for 2nd best for bird watchers. Does that mean second most expensive, then?

[Leif]

Ask them for 2nd best for bird watchers. Does that mean second most expensive, then?

Probably, though the price is not always directly related to the profit, so you can't always tell. 8-P

To be fair, only some shops are like this. Many are very honest. I've stayed away from the ones I thought were dodgy, so I'm sure it doesn't benefit them in the long run.

It could genuinely be that they believe that Swaro are best for birders. Their kit is exceptionally well made and looks neat too!

[iebirdie]

Had an hour to spare this afternoon so went back to the bins shop. Tried the ultravid 8x42 versus the Swaro 8.5. Swaro definitely has the larger image but felt the colour, contrast and steadiness (including balance) better in the Ultravid, but only marginally. Impossible to pick between the two, I suspect people's choices will come down to feel and look.

Interestingly I tried the 10x32EL (in bad cloudy afternoon light). I was impressed by their brightness, which I did not expect. I have been eyeing up 10s recently, and did not consider 10x32s because thought they would be darker, but this one surprised me.

Anyone else thought this ?

Anyone got one ?

N

[scampo]

Probably, though the price is not always directly related to the profit, so you can't always tell. 8-P

To be fair, only some shops are like this. Many are very honest. I've stayed away from the ones I thought were dodgy, so I'm sure it doesn't benefit them in the long run.

It could genuinely be that they believe that Swaro are best for birders. Their kit is exceptionally well made and looks neat too!
I would think with top makes, profit is a percentage of selling price so price would indeed be related to profits, but I take your point.

There must be very few places from which you can buy optics where the advice is sound, I should think. I phoned a highly-respected Intenet dealership last week to ask for help with buying a digiscoping tripod. If I repeated the advice that I was given, you'd laugh. I almost interrupted and said, "Look, do me a favour and save my phone bill: if you don't know, then please SAY SO!" So many yong salesmen, in my experience, will not admit their ignorance.

[Leif]

There must be very few places from which you can buy optics where the advice is sound, I should think. I phoned a highly-respected Intenet dealership last week to ask for help with buying a digiscoping tripod. If I repeated the advice that I was given, you'd laugh. I almost interrupted and said, "Look, do me a favour and save my phone bill: if you don't know, then please SAY SO!" So many yong salesmen, in my experience, will not admit their ignorance.

I was told by a salesman with a respected dealership that the Leica APO 77 scope is old hat and nowhere near as good as more modern scopes from Zeiss, Nikon and Swarovski. Complete bull. He did not sell Leica. Any connection? He was a lying so and so. I won't mention the dealership name for legal reasons. (Also because most of their sales staff are very good and helpful.)

[scampo]

You should've tried the Nikon HG8x42 - you'd have been able to choose then!

(-:

[iebirdie]

I have been doing my sums and here is my dilemma. Forgive me if the following sounds obsessive, but that's birders for you :-)

I have an (excellent) 8x32BN. A move to the coast last year means I now do more walking/biking out and about and carry my bins, scanning the estuary, seashore and dunes. The 8x32BN is great to carry, but I find it a bit lacking over the longer distances. However, in the main I do not like 10 powers because of shake and eyestrain (although the 10x32 EL today was not too bad to hold). I am also attracted to the idea of a binocular which is easier to carry or bike with.

Because I bought my 8x32BN for a much lower price in the UK, the trade in price offered to me by my local dealer here is actually fairly good (that particular Leica model retails for a more expensive price here), better than I would get in the UK. He has also pretty much matched UK prices today on the particular models of interest to me! (amazing what producing a birding magazine does). He even undercut the lowest UK price a bit on the ELs.

I used to aspire to a Swaro 8.5x42 as the ultimate bins, but in the last while I have become concerned about its size/weight if I were to use it as my sole bins and when out and about, on my bike etc., and am not too attracted to trading in the 8x32BN for it as my "only" bins. Also my initial impression at least is that even thought the Swaro gives you a better magnification "kick" (8.5x) the Ultravid 8x42 is a bit sharper/steadier/more compact.

Here are my options (approx costs in UK £ sterling):

1) Keep the 8x32BN and do nothing (cost = £0)
2) Trade in the 8x32BN for an 8x42 Ultravid (cost = £460)
3) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 10x32BN for the longer views (cost = £615)
4) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 8.5x42EL (cost = £780)
5) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 10x32EL for the longer views (cost = £800)

After that, the costs get out of hand and I need to stop ! :-)

Option 2) interests me as the Ultravid is excellent, and is mid sized. My impression is that I will see "more" (even though no extra magnification) with the 8x42 Ultravid. It is not exactly travel sized like the 8x32BN, but also it is not commander-of-the-ship sized like the 8.5x EL.

However, it would be nice to have a back up pair of bins, for the other half, for travel etc... and for a 10x view (albeit 32mm objective, but such views would always be in reasonable daylight). Not sure if it is worth the cost though.

I tried the 8-12x42 duovids by the way, and while they were good, they were heavy. I just know I would be pining for my 8x32BNs again...

Ah, the pleasure and the pain continues....

cheers
Niall
p.s. anyone know anything about this (www.leupold.com) product ?

"Leupold Golden Ring 10-20x40mm Compact Spotting Scope
• Just 15.8 oz and 7.5" long — it’s powerful, yet so light and compact you can wear it around your neck or carry it in a waistpack.
• Use handheld — it fits in your hand, or you can mount it on most standard tripods, monopods, or window mounts.
• Multicoat 4 lens coatings — our proprietary lens coating optimizes brightness, clarity, and contrast while reducing glare."
http://www.leupold.com/products/birding_observation/Leupold_2004_Binoculars_Specs_Birding.pdf

[scampo]

I was told by a salesman with a respected dealership that the Leica APO 77 scope is old hat and nowhere near as good as more modern scopes from Zeiss, Nikon and Swarovski. Complete bull. He did not sell Leica. Any connection? He was a lying so and so. I won't mention the dealership name for legal reasons. (Also because most of their sales staff are very good and helpful.)
Well - I was looking through their little 62Apo yesterday and that certainly is not 'out of date'; but that long heavyweight of a 77, Leif - wow, whatever made you...


((-:

[scampo]

1) Keep the 8x32BN and do nothing (cost = £0)
2) Trade in the 8x32BN for an 8x42 Ultravid (cost = £460)
3) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 10x32BN for the longer views (cost = £615)
4) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 8.5x42EL (cost = £780)
5) Keep the 8x32BN and buy a new 10x32EL for the longer views (cost = £800)

Honestly, you don't need new bins - you already have as good a view as you'll get at present and they were built to last a lifetime - that's why you paid so much for them in the first place...

Yes, the others will offer you differences, some positive, some negative - but all so very minor that after a month, you'll just feel less well off and be kicking yourself. It's my guess that the conviction you now have in your mind is just marketing glitz - and it lasts such a very little time.

[iebirdie]

You see Steve, I needed someone to say that to me !!

I did out that posting, and worked out the costs, and sat back and went "gosh, I must be mad".

An ultravid view is hardly £460 better...

Yes, the marketing glitz really works !

N

[Leif]

Well - I was looking through their little 62Apo yesterday and that certainly is not 'out of date'; but that long heavyweight of a 77, Leif - wow, whatever made you...


((-:

Carry on like that young Scampo and I'll thwack you with my big scope! Anyway, I thought the Leica 62 was almost as ill-proportioned as the Nikon 82 ED. :king:

Seriously though, I am really impressed with the Leica APO 77. The images are marvelous, even in bad light. I was near Powderham Castle watching waterfowl, and the limit to what I could see was heat haze and not the optics.

The weight is simply not an issue, given that I carry it over my shoulder, and it only takes 10 seconds to get ready for use. I did notice while watching Guillimots on the coast that the strong wind caused a lot of wobble. Maybe the wind vibration would be a bit less if it was a bit shorter? But then again I have the basic InFocus tripod which is nice and light but not the most stable around.

[Leif]

You see Steve, I needed someone to say that to me !!

I did out that posting, and worked out the costs, and sat back and went "gosh, I must be mad".

An ultravid view is hardly £460 better...

Yes, the marketing glitz really works !

N

It does sound like you like the Leica 8x32 BN! As Steve suggests, you might be searching for a problem to fit the solution rather than vica versa.

If you are desperate for something to throw serious money at, a scope will do the trick ... A mere £1500 for a Swaro ATS 80 HD + 20-60 zoom + SOC. A bargain.

[Swissboy]

If you read both reviews of Zeiss Victory at www.betterviewdesried.com you can see that there have been at least 3 versions of these binocular.In the second version i understand the optics were improved. I'am not sure if the optics were further improved in Victory II.To make it more complicated Zeiss only call this version 3 Victory in Europe and Victory II in USA.

Laika, I can't see 3 versions there, unless retrofits are counted. And the Victories have always been called Victory in Europe (or should I say at least in Switzerland). The problem is that Zeiss has not changed the designation for the improved types in Europe. And if retrofits regarding strap attachment are really that easy that would cast serious doubt about their doing business.

[scampo]

You see Steve, I needed someone to say that to me !!

I did out that posting, and worked out the costs, and sat back and went "gosh, I must be mad".

An ultravid view is hardly £460 better...

Yes, the marketing glitz really works !

N
Many of us have fallen for it - my son has my old Optolyth bins and almost always spots the bird before I do. I catch him on the songs, though - well, so far.

[scampo]

Carry on like that young Scampo and I'll thwack you with my big scope! Anyway, I thought the Leica 62 was almost as ill-proportioned as the Nikon 82 ED. :king:

Seriously though, I am really impressed with the Leica APO 77. The images are marvelous, even in bad light. I was near Powderham Castle watching waterfowl, and the limit to what I could see was heat haze and not the optics.

The weight is simply not an issue, given that I carry it over my shoulder, and it only takes 10 seconds to get ready for use. I did notice while watching Guillimots on the coast that the strong wind caused a lot of wobble. Maybe the wind vibration would be a bit less if it was a bit shorter? But then again I have the basic InFocus tripod which is nice and light but not the most stable around.
I've known that all along - I bought from In focus, if you rememebr, via an Opticron ES80 that proved faulty. Your Leica is first class (as is Kowa, Nikon, Zeiss and, okay, I'll say it, Swarovski...)

[iebirdie]

Many of us have fallen for it - my son has my old Optolyth bins and almost always spots the bird before I do. I catch him on the songs, though - well, so far.

Interestingly, since I've started going out without the scope, my fieldcraft has been improving no end. I am working with my ears and much longer view. I practice recognising distant wingbeat patterns, calls, wingflashes and other jizz. Leaving the scope behind from time to time is to be recommended, and the outing is just as enjoyable.

N

[laika]

Laika, I can't see 3 versions there, unless retrofits are counted. And the Victories have always been called Victory in Europe (or should I say at least in Switzerland). The problem is that Zeiss has not changed the designation for the improved types in Europe. And if retrofits regarding strap attachment are really that easy that would cast serious doubt about their doing business.

First read www.betterviewdesired.com/501/index.html This is the review of the revisited edition "Zeiss 8x42s revisited" 42 should of course be 40. Here Steven Ingram mention his first review of the original Victory in Birding Magazine "...the original wasn't very sharp..." "Apparantly first production samples were not what they expected."

In this review of the revisited edition Ingram concludes: "In the revisited edition here,the Zeiss have earned a place among the top roofs."

Then read www.betterviewdesired.com/zeiss/Victory.html This is a review of the last edition (Victory II in USA)with new strap attchement.
If you only read this last review then you of course will think that only Victory II have improved optics.

At www.zeiss.com you can find a press release about the Victory II. The press release says nothing about improved optics only improved eyecups,new strap attachement and new armoring. And under 10x40 you can find a sentence about improved center focus drive.
Last summer i tried a 10x40 version 2 (or 1?) and the center focus drive in my new 8x40 VII is indeed improved ,very smooth.

[Swissboy]

First read www.betterviewdesired.com/501/index.html This is the review of the revisited edition "Zeiss 8x42s revisited" 42 should of course be 40. Here Steven Ingram mention his first review of the original Victory in Birding Magazine "...the original wasn't very sharp..." "Apparantly first production samples were not what they expected."

In this review of the revisited edition Ingram concludes: "In the revisited edition here,the Zeiss have earned a place among the top roofs."

Then read www.betterviewdesired.com/zeiss/Victory.html This is a review of the last edition (Victory II in USA)with new strap attchement.
If you only read this last review then you of course will think that only Victory II have improved optics.

At www.zeiss.com you can find a press release about the Victory II. The press release says nothing about improved optics only improved eyecups,new strap attachement and new armoring. And under 10x40 you can find a sentence about improved center focus drive.
Last summer i tried a 10x40 version 2 (or 1?) and the center focus drive in my new 8x40 VII is indeed improved ,very smooth.

As far as I know, the first version Ingraham had was a pre-production one. At least that was what I understood when I first read that post some long time ago. So I don't think that version ever got on the market.

As for the focussing drive: apparently it can be adjusted by the Zeiss service people. Here, the first models that got on the market had a problem with the focus wheel coming off! It happened to my brother when he was on an extended trip to the tropics. And on the replacement pair, he had to return it to make the focus smoother. It is still not as smooth as mine though. When I ordered mine I specifically requested a smooth focus drive. Maybe, they finally realized that every serious user wants it that way. Again, I wondered why they had been unable to get it right from the start.

I sure hope that Zeiss has learned its lesson by now. I am certainly much more reluctant now to be among the first customers for their new model. The "let's wait and see" attitude, however, is not a good way to get a new product started. So I hope Zeiss will be doing it right from the beginning this time.

[AlanFrench]

1.) All things being equal, the 40-42 objective should show more detail than the 30-32 objective. That's the physics part. Whether or not your eye can discern that detail is an unknown.

[SNIP].

The physics says that a 42mm objective shows more detail than a 32mm objective, but there are some conditions that tend to get ignored. First, you need enough magnification to allow the eye to resolve the detail the objective can reveal. If you have very good eyesight you might be able to see all possible detail with a 2mm exit pupil (16x on a 32mm or 21x on a 42mm), but a 1mm exit pupil is far more realistice (32x on a 32mm or 42x on a 42mm). Second, you need a diffraction limited optical system - one of such high quality that its performance is only limited by the "wave nature" of light. Binoculars are not diffraction limited instruments.

The reality, though, is that on most days you are not even using the entire objective. On a sunny day your eye's pupil will be no larger than about 3mm, so you are working with only, at most, 24mm of your objective on any 8x binocular.

Clear skies, Alan