Zeiss FL 7x - Anybody tried these yet?

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings!

I found out yesterday that Zeiss is manufacturing a 7x42 FL series binocular, seen here:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A80033F8E4/ContentsWWWIntern/C8246FF4B15C8E2CC1256EBA004EF263

I am curious if anyone on this board has tried a pair of these yet, and if so what are your impressions? I am a big fan of 7x binoculars, because of the ease of long-term use and the magnificent field of view. Are these new 7x FL's all they are cracked up to be? If so, I'll probably be buying a pair by the end of the year....

Best wishes,
Bawko

[tlb]

Greetings!

I found out yesterday that Zeiss is manufacturing a 7x42 FL series binocular, seen here:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A80033F8E4/ContentsWWWIntern/C8246FF4B15C8E2CC1256EBA004EF263

I am curious if anyone on this board has tried a pair of these yet, and if so what are your impressions? I am a big fan of 7x binoculars, because of the ease of long-term use and the magnificent field of view. Are these new 7x FL's all they are cracked up to be? If so, I'll probably be buying a pair by the end of the year....

Best wishes,
Bawko


I've had a pair of the 7x42 FLs for almost a month. I am exceptionally pleased with them...enough so that I am seriously considering selling my Nikon 8x32 SEs.

The 7x42s do suffer from the edge sharpness issues attributed to the FL line but in practice the field of view is so large that I rarely notice it at all. In fact, the "field of apparent sharpness" (to make up a term) is larger than that of the 8x32 SEs.

What I mean is that, even though the SEs are sharper closer to the edge, the sharp portion of the 7x42s is larger than than that of the SEs even though they don't hold the sharpness as close to the edge. (Did that make any sense?)

I've not yet detected any CA, they are noticeably brighter than the SEs (under the appropriate conditions, of course), color fidelity seems excellent, contrast is the best I've seen and the large exit pupil makes for a very pleasant viewing experience.

I had intended to perform a more objective evaluation but I'm enjoying using them so much that I'm hard pressed to spend the time on resolution charts and contrast targets.

In short...Highly recommended!

Tony

[Steve Napier]

Yes Tony,
I thoroughly agree with all you say,I bought a pair at the weekend and they are fantastic.
Incredibly bright and the image is so pure.
I agree too about the softening at the edges not being an issue,it just doesnt bother me as im too busy enjoying the stunning razor sharp ultra bright images.
I think they"re a joy to hold too although,this is very much a personal thing.
I would love to think Zeiss will release a 12x+ model for Astronomy.
Steve.

[Leif]

I would love to think Zeiss will release a 12x+ model for Astronomy.

There's a rumour on Cloudy Nights that Zeiss will bring out 8x56, 10x56, 12x56 FL. I don't know the source.

[Steve Napier]

Thanks Leif.
A 12x model would make a dream Astronomy binocular. The only down side would be that awful tripod adapter Zeiss sell.
Steve.

[Rich N]

The Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T*, as I remember, is also a little soft toward the edges of the field. How does the new Zeiss 7x42 FL compare in edge sharpness to the Classic?

I agree that a 12x56 FL would be an outstanding astro binocular.

Rich

[Steve Napier]

Ive never had the pleasure of using the 7x42 classic Rich.
I was looking at the last quater Moon only an hour ago and it was a beautiful sight but,I was yearning for more magnification. I don"t suppose Zeiss will be releasing a 20x60 FL? I think thats a bit too much to hope for and,I would have to rob a bank.
Steve.

[hinnark]

The Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T*, as I remember, is also a little soft toward the edges of the field. How does the new Zeiss 7x42 FL compare in edge sharpness to the Classic?

I agree that a 12x56 FL would be an outstanding astro binocular.

Rich

Hi Rich,

the Zeiss 7x42 FL performs better than the Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T* in respect of edge sharpness. You have to do a second look at the edges to detect the softening. In fact I don´t know any other binocular with that wide fov that have an edge sharp as the 7x42 FL. I´m considering to change my 10x50 Leica BN against it. Most of the times I take my scope to birding so that a wide field bino would be the better complement than a high power bino. I didn´t had the chance to try the 7x42 FL at the night sky. This is the moment of truth for every binocular and scope in respect of edge sharpness. Are the stars of pinpoint shape? But as there are so many amateur astronomers who enjoy the Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T* and the FL performs better in daylight use (contrast and sharpness is better and there is no yellow cast) I assume the FL should be an improvement. It would be very interesting to compare the light transmission of both Zeiss binoculars. AFAIK the Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T* was the record holder in this respect.

Steve

[Leif]

Ive never had the pleasure of using the 7x42 classic Rich.
I was looking at the last quater Moon only an hour ago and it was a beautiful sight but,I was yearning for more magnification. I don"t suppose Zeiss will be releasing a 20x60 FL? I think thats a bit too much to hope for and,I would have to rob a bank.
Steve.

Steve: The Takahashi 20x60 is IIRC claimed to be apochromatic, and is generally reckoned to be first rate. I think it too has triplet objectives with a low dispersion element in each. The only negative is the slightly narrow FOV. Try Cloudy Nights and Excelsis for some reviews.

[Rich N]

Hi Rich,

the Zeiss 7x42 FL performs better than the Zeiss Classic 7x42 B/GA T* in respect of edge sharpness. You have to do a second look at the edges to detect the softening. In fact I don´t know any other binocular with that wide fov that have a edge sharp as the 7x42 FL.

Steve

Thanks very much, Steve.

Now if we could have another big comet fly by to give me a "must have" reason to buy a 7x42 FL. I've got to try one.

Rich

[Blackstart]

Add me to the list of those who are intrigued by a comparison between the 7x42 BGAT Classic and the 7x42 FL.

If the FL is indeed better, is it $500 better? Interesting that the fine Classic is now almost a "mid-range" binocular.

-Adam

[hinnark]

Add me to the list of those who are intrigued by a comparison between the 7x42 BGAT Classic and the 7x42 FL.

If the FL is indeed better, is it $500 better? Interesting that the fine Classic is now almost a "mid-range" binocular.

-Adam

Adam,

this is difficult to answer because no one can assess optical performance exactly to dollars. But my opinion is: no, not $ 500 better. The Classic isn´t waterproof but optical it´s still high end.

Steve

[Blackstart]

Hi Steve,

When I said "mid-range" about the Classic, I was only referring to the price.

-Adam

[Steve Napier]

I doubt there is a big difference optically between the two 7x42 models.
Leif,the 22x60 Takahashi Astronomers only have a 2.1 degree field of view but I hear its Incredible!
Steve.

[Swissboy]

I was looking at the last quater Moon only an hour ago and it was a beautiful sight but,I was yearning for more magnification. I don"t suppose Zeiss will be releasing a 20x60 FL? I think thats a bit too much to hope for and,I would have to rob a bank. Steve.

Steve, why not give the Zeiss FL scope a try, the 65 type might fit the bill, except that you can only look through with one eye, of course. But my guess is that Zeiss won't produce any binoculars in the 20x range, now that they have those scopes. But then, getting one of those scopes, you should get along without that infamous walk to the bank that you contemplated. ;)
Robert

[Steve Napier]

Thanks for that Swissboy,I have a TeleVue 3" refractor for Astronomy which is one stunning instrument,performance during day is also exqusite!
Steve.

[RCMann]

I've had a pair of the 7x42 FLs for almost a month. I am exceptionally pleased with them...enough so that I am seriously considering selling my Nikon 8x32 SEs.
Tony

Tony-how do the 7x FLs compare to the 8x SEs in terms of apparent magnification? I've detected that (at least to my eyes) roofs often seem to have a larger image than porros of equal power, even at greater distances. I like the idea of 7x bins, but hate the idea of downsizing the power. Comments? Thanks...Rod

[elkcub]

Tony-how do the 7x FLs compare to the 8x SEs in terms of apparent magnification? I've detected that (at least to my eyes) roofs often seem to have a larger image than porros of equal power, even at greater distances. I like the idea of 7x bins, but hate the idea of downsizing the power. Comments? Thanks...Rod

I've had the same experience. I'm told by a very experienced repair person that not all manufacturers control magnification exactly, and that there are also differences between the two barrels. Expensive binocs are made to closer tolerances. Another reason to pay what you can afford.

elkcub

[John Traynor]

Tony-how do the 7x FLs compare to the 8x SEs in terms of apparent magnification? I've detected that (at least to my eyes) roofs often seem to have a larger image than porros of equal power, even at greater distances. I like the idea of 7x bins, but hate the idea of downsizing the power. Comments? Thanks...Rod


It's an illusion resulting from putting the same size object in differing fields of view. Given the same magnification, an object in a larger FOV appears smaller than it does in a narrower FOV.

The differences between 7X and 8X are so small it's often hard to discern the difference, but it's there.

Interestingly, I can often see more with my 6X32 than with an 8X42. The lightweight 6X is comparable to an image stabilized bin...no shaking whatsoever to spoil the image. Handshake, in my opinion, degrades image quality and overall enjoyment more than anything else. Poor collimation is number 2.

The illusions are interesting.

John

[normjackson]

Recall discussion here on BirdForum came to conclusion that the extra parallax effect in bins with wide-spaced objectives gave the illusion of less magnification. Use half of a porro and roof of same nominal magnification as monoculars, and illusion disappears. (Or could do tests to confirm magnification figures of both are identical).

Norm

PS. Should add FOV may make more difference in general to perceived magnification, but the parallax effect explains an apparent difference in magnification of porro and roof which have same nominal magnification and FOV.

[elkcub]

Recall discussion here on BirdForum came to conclusion that the extra parallax effect in bins with wide-spaced objectives gave the illusion of less magnification. Use half of a porro and roof of same nominal magnification as monoculars, and illusion disappears. (Or could do tests to confirm magnification figures of both are identical).

Norm

PS. Should add FOV may make more difference in general to perceived magnification, but the parallax effect explains an apparent difference in magnification of porro and roof which have same nominal magnification and FOV.

That's fascinating, and I believe it. All my porros give me the impression of lower magnification, altho that's also confounded with FOV differences. Still, it's curious since parallax is not supposed to make any difference in distance estimation past 40 ft. or so. (I did say "supposed to"...) The FOV aspect appears related to "size constancy" perception.

-elk

[Jack Giltinan]

I have owned numerous binoculars over the years and the excitement and
antisapation I feel about the arrival of new optics has not diminished with
time.

I currently own a pair of Zeiss 8x40 Victory IIs and a Nikon 8x32 Venturer LX.
I hope to compare them tomorrow, after which at least one pair will be as
fhey say, history.

I'll let you know my unscientific subjective, unworthwhile, honest opinion soon.


Jack

[dogfish]

I've had a pair of 7x42FLs for two months now. Brief verdict: the purest image of all the top bins I've tried or owned; superb brightness and contrast. One reviewer says there's a slight yellow cast but I can't see it. I'm not sure to what extent the flourite contributes to this excellent image as I've never been too aware of chromatic abberation in top-end bins; except in the Leica 8x32BNs I used to own.
The 7x42 Dialyts were superb bins and the FLs are not hugely different optically; I've not compared them for brightness yet but the FLs have slightly better colour rendition, and lack, to my eyes, the very slight yellow cast of the older bins. And of course the focus is closer on the FLs: enough to make a difference in birding, not just insect-watching.
Dislikes: the rainguard is too tight a fit and should be thrown away; the focus should be smoother; I would prefer a smoother feel to the body, but that's a bit picky. The adjustable eyecup design feels less robust than the Ultravid version; it may not be.
The Ultravids are also superb bins (I have the 8x42s) but do to my eyes have a noticeable (but not distractingly so) cast in the yellow/green area.

Sean

[Jack Giltinan]

Great!...wondering if the tight focus has loosened at all?

[Richard Scott]

Great!...wondering if the tight focus has loosened at all?

In the reviews I've seen, the focussing does loosen with use.

Rich.

[dogfish]

The FL focus is a little rough, rather than stiff. It doesn't affect the ability to focus and I think I'm getting used to it. Don't think it's changed since I bought them (at a very good price through BirdForum). Interestingly, the Ultravids are a bit rough in that department too. Is rough focusing a price we're paying for lighter bins? Are these focusing mechanisms that don't use grease? Perhaps the more technically minded can shed some light.

Sean

[AlanFrench]

The FL focus is a little rough, rather than stiff. It doesn't affect the ability to focus and I think I'm getting used to it. Don't think it's changed since I bought them (at a very good price through BirdForum). Interestingly, the Ultravids are a bit rough in that department too. Is rough focusing a price we're paying for lighter bins? Are these focusing mechanisms that don't use grease? Perhaps the more technically minded can shed some light.

Sean

Sean,

IMHO, at the prices of high end binoculars, the focus should be nice and smooth, with no hint of roughness or stiffness. At that price point, there is no excuse for anything less.

Clear skies, Alan

[Bill Atwood]

The 7x FLs I've been trying have a smooth focus, maybe a little stiff. Its either loosened up some, or I've just become accustomed to it. The deep indentations on the knob really help with rotating it. Its not as smooth as the Nikon HGLs but suitable for me. Much better than the Ultravids.

The more I use these bins the more I like them, just wish the that Eagle Optics would get the 8x in stock now.

[dogfish]

Sean,

IMHO, at the prices of high end binoculars, the focus should be nice and smooth, with no hint of roughness or stiffness. At that price point, there is no excuse for anything less.

Clear skies, Alan

I entirely agree Alan, and made this point myself on this forum in relation to the Ultravid. I just wonder if manufacturers are trying new methods of construction that may have many advantages (light weight, no stiffness in low temperatures etc) but which produce a slightly less smooth focus.

Incidentally, I had a full day with the FLs yesterday, and contra my previous post, they do seem to be getting smoother.

Sean

[Leif]

The 7x FLs I've been trying have a smooth focus, maybe a little stiff. Its either loosened up some, or I've just become accustomed to it. The deep indentations on the knob really help with rotating it. Its not as smooth as the Nikon HGLs but suitable for me. Much better than the Ultravids.

The more I use these bins the more I like them, just wish the that Eagle Optics would get the 8x in stock now.

I agree with Alan's comment.

My 8x42 FL has a beautifully smooth focus with no backlash.

[Grousemore]

I agree with Alan's comment.

My 8x42 FL has a beautifully smooth focus with no backlash.

Me too, the 10x42 FL focus is perfect for me, even today with gloves on.

[henry link]

I've handled three samples of the 8X42 FL. All had perfectly smooth focusers straight out of the box. I haven't noticed any change in the pair I have been using for about four months.

[hinnark]

I tried a 7x42 FL last week. While turning the focus wheel I noticed that its friction was not the same over the whole turn. Some degrees of the turn were stiffer than others. I noticed this earlier this year with some sample FLs so I assume it could be an issue in general. So if you try a FL put some attention of the focus mechanism and if it works with constant smooth friction.

Steve

[Curtis Croulet]

Like Henry Link, I am one of the (in)famous early owners of the 8x42 FL in the USA, having received mine from Eagle Optics on Aug 6. I don't see the "small sweet spot" problem that has so vexed some users. But not all has gone perfectly. About three weeks ago, my Zeiss took a short tumble to the ground out of my car. The optical alignment and exterior finish were unaffected, but the focus is not as it was. Maybe it picked up some dust or fine grit, because the focus is now noticeably rougher and noisier than before, expecially in that area of focus where I do most of my, er, focusing. I wonder how it's going to be after a few trips to the desert or beach. I also wonder about the field testing of a product like this. I'm sure it received extensive testing in foul European weather, but I wonder if they ever test them in other regions.