Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski...8X comparison

[John Traynor]

Let me begin by saying I'm going to call it the way I saw it through my eyes. If you own any of the binoculars mentioned, please feel free to comment as you please. For this run of tests, I limited myself to 8X models.

Zeiss FL 8X42
Today I got my hands on a Zeiss FL 8X42. Sitting next to it on the countertop were a Leica Ultravid 8X42 and a Swarovski 8.5X42.

The FL was a serious disappointment considering some of the reviews I've read. In general, I found the overall build quality of the FL inferior to the Leica or Swaro. I don't use eyecups so I can't comment on those. Eye relief was OK and the low IPD suited me just fine. So far, so good.

I thought the diopter mechanism was poorly designed and the focus wheel dialed in/out of focus much too fast. Since we usually set the diopter and forget about it, I won't make a big deal out of diopter design or operation. Focus control is another story. Maybe it was a result of shallow depth of field but I found myself going in/out of focus much too often as I spent time viewing close and distant objects. My guess is shallow depth of field.

Henry was dead on. Off-center sharpness in the 8X I tested was not good and I think the argument "Put the bird in the center" is ludicrous when applied to a $1400 binocular. What do I mean by not good? I mean unacceptable to a discriminating eye. If Stephen Ingraham really said this bin is optically better than an SE 8X32 I want to talk to him. Brighter? Probably. Sharper? NO. Easier to use? NO. A more pleasing view? Not to me it wasn’t! Enough said.

The topic of selecting from a group of bins arose in respect to the FL so maybe, just maybe, the 8X I looked at was at the bottom of the quality pile. I don't know and I don't care because I expect every $1400 bin to meet very high quality standards. Should any of us expect less? I put the FL aside wondering what it was people were impressed by.


Leica Ultravid 8X42 and Swarovski EL 8.5X42
We've all read opinions about these two bins, so here's one more. Both bins are exceptionally pleasing to use. I think the Ultravid 8X was a smidgen brighter and perhaps a gnat's hair sharper. They were so close to my eye I found myself going back and forth, preferring one then the other and back again. In the end, I decided I preferred the EL. Here's why.

The edge sharpness of the Ultravid is good, but inferior to the EL. Forget about measurements; it's about perception. The image in the EL window is presented more uniformly than in the Ultravid and, as a result, there is less visual stress. It's more about what isn't there (distortion, fuzziness, etc.) than what is.

I tested the EL and the Ultravid outside. I remember the EL handling flare a bit better than the Ultravid, but I didn't spend much time on it. It was just a quick impression. It seemed like the Ultravid was a gnat's hair sharper but it was really hard to confirm. My gut tells me to give the sharpness edge to the Ultravid with the caveat that the EL's overall image quality offset any difference in sharpness. Again, it's about perception, not careful measurements.

The clincher was a close focus test (from ~11 feet) and the EL nailed it. The Ultravid was sharp but the image suffered slightly from the Ultravid's poorer edge sharpness. The uniform image of the EL made the experience surreal. The EL also has superb depth of field and I like that a lot. The fact that the EL would allow me to get closer to my subject is also a plus.


Conclusion:

If you are happy with your FL, I'm happy for you. There is nothing better to a birder than a fine binocular. If you are seriously considering an FL, I strongly advise you to critically examine your preferences and then critically compare the FL to Leica and Swarovski models.

I would be happy to use any of the Ultravid models (7X, 8X) I've examined. All were very fine instruments with acceptable high-quality fields of view. I think the 7X might be the better of the two models, though I've never compared them side-by-side. I did compare a 7X to my SE and I came away liking the 7X very much!

The EL does it all for me. I can pick it up, dial in the image and get on with viewing. For me, it is the better view.

John

[M Cowming]

Nice review John.

I here the new Zeiss 8X32 and 10x32 bins are the "bees knees". I'm a fairly serious birder but at the moment have not got the funds to buy such desired bins.
It would be great to read a review on these apparent new gems but we may have to wait til the end of the year to see how they compare in the field.

I think Swaro's come out smelling of roses in the end a lot of the time...can't wait to try a pair myself!!!

Regards,

[Curtis Croulet]

Henry was dead on. Off-center sharpness in the 8X I tested was horrible and I think the argument "Put the bird in the center" is ludicrous when applied to a $1400 binocular. What do I mean by horrible? I mean unacceptable to a discriminating eye.
John

This and your other comments about the FL are utterly, completely contrary to my experience. I mean all of it, 100%.

[Chris Monk]

I tried a pair of 7x42 Zeiss FLs today at our annual Bird Fest and found them very bright and to have good contrast. A pair of 8x42s I tried at the British Birdwatching Fair back in August were equally as impressive.

[Tim Allwood]

and many people including a well known optics dealer in UK put Nikon HG's above all the others optically......

the new FL might even be as reliable, durable, crisp and bright as my old 7 x 42 dialyts ;)

[John Traynor]

This and your other comments about the FL are utterly, completely contrary to my experience. I mean all of it, 100%.

Actually, Curtis, these are my only comments directly related to the FL. My other comments were questions or general observations about what I find important in a binocular. Until today, I had never seen an FL.

I'm glad you have a pair you're happy with. The pair I looked at today was exactly as I described and Henry and Kimmo both reported on the same issue...poor edge sharpness.

Candidly speaking, I was hoping I'd pick them up and wonder what all the fuss was about. I expected to see a superb image on the order of the Leica or Swarovski and I didn't. I'd love to examine a dozen random samples, but that wasn't possible. Maybe there's a general QA problem; maybe this was a just a bad one. In any case, the image degraded rapidly off-center and I found it unacceptable. Other eyes will certainly see things differently.

John

[pduxon]

you pays your money you takes your choice.......

[Jonathan B.]

John:

Good review. I have not handled the FL yet, but I agree with your comparison of EL and Ultravid, with the exception that I chose the Ultravid over the EL for the minutely better sharpness, lighter weight, and--to my hands--better ergonomics. The EL has the best edge sharpness of all of the binoculars I have handled, though one must re-focus slightly to sharpen the edge. No re-focusing will bring the edge of the Ultravid's image into focus.

[Leif]

This and your other comments about the FL are utterly, completely contrary to my experience. I mean all of it, 100%.

Absolutely. It reads like a hatchet job on the Zeiss FL and I think it is completely biased. Almost 100% criticism of the Zeiss and almost 100% praise for the Leica and Swarovski. John: Are you connected with any optics company, or are you a dealer in optics? (Incidentally this thought occurred to me before you posted your 'review', but your 'review' makes me even more suspicious.)

[John Traynor]

Absolutely. It reads like a hatchet job on the Zeiss FL and I think it is completely biased. Almost 100% criticism of the Zeiss and almost 100% praise for the Leica and Swarovski. John: Are you connected with any optics company, or are you a dealer in optics? (Incidentally this thought occurred to me before you posted your 'review', but your 'review' makes me even more suspicious.)

Leif,

You should know better! Others brought up the problem with edge sharpness in the FL as soon as the bin hit the market. I just commented on what I saw. I also omitted comments that were made to me in private because I thought it inappropriate to pass on 2nd hand comments. Figure that out for yourself.

I'm a Nikon SE fan and I don't like the beloved Nikon HG/LX line. Leica hasn't responded to 2 emails (sent via their website) and I can't stand non-responsive companies. I've never dealt with Swarovski.

Nope, I don't trade in optics.

I hope that clears things up for you.

John

[Donzo98]

Absolutely. It reads like a hatchet job on the Zeiss FL and I think it is completely biased. Almost 100% criticism of the Zeiss and almost 100% praise for the Leica and Swarovski. John: Are you connected with any optics company, or are you a dealer in optics? (Incidentally this thought occurred to me before you posted your 'review', but your 'review' makes me even more suspicious.)

You MUST be joking!!! I cant imagine that because someone gives THEIR OPINION on a product that is something you may not agree with, you assume that they are biased and work for an optics company. Other posters have stated similar findings and have not been ripped to shreds on this forum.

That is INSANE. I have read John's posts in the past and I find them inciteful and informative. I honestly believe that he was hoping the FL's were GREAT... but he didnt. BIG DEAL!! Curtis loves them... and some others don't. SO WHAT!!

How about we just stop accusing people of bias and get back to reviewing optics without fear of getting blown out of the water.

Don

[Leif]

Leif,

You should know better! Others brought up the problem with edge sharpness in the FL as soon as the bin hit the market. I just commented on what I saw. I also omitted comments that were made to me in private because I thought it inappropriate to pass on 2nd hand comments. Figure that out for yourself.

I'm a Nikon SE fan and I don't like the beloved Nikon HG/LX line. Leica hasn't responded to 2 emails (sent via their website) and I can't stand non-responsive companies. I've never dealt with Swarovski.

Nope, I don't trade in optics.

I hope that clears things up for you.

John

What do you mean that I should know better?

Your review seems grossly biased against the Zeiss FL and I am at a loss how you can pan it so completely. I tried a pair and examined the finish and build. It seemed excellent and on a par with the competition. The diopter is as per Swarovski EL. The focus is very smooth. I thought the optics excellent too and the absence of CA was obvious. I have a pair on order but have been waiting over 5 weeks. Hohum. When they arrive I will check out the sharpness issue.

I won't comment here in more detail because there are already many threads that give a balanced view point of each brand. Suffice to say that IMO we now have lots of first rate binoculars to choose from.

BTW Leica USA service is often slow to respond but in my experience very helpful. I was impressed by them. (I was less impressed by Leica UK but that's another story.)

[iporali]

The edge sharpness of the Ultravid is good, but inferior to the EL. Forget about measurements; it's about perception. The image in the EL window is presented more uniformly than in the Ultravid and, as a result, there is less visual stress. It's more about what isn't there (distortion, fuzziness, etc.) than what is.
How would you compare the edge sharpness (or the lack of it) of the Ultravids and the FLs?

Ilkka

[Leif]

You MUST be joking!!! I cant imagine that because someone gives THEIR OPINION on a product that is something you may not agree with, you assume that they are biased and work for an optics company. Other posters have stated similar findings and have not been ripped to shreds on this forum.

That is INSANE. I have read John's posts in the past and I find them inciteful and informative. I honestly believe that he was hoping the FL's were GREAT... but he didnt. BIG DEAL!! Curtis loves them... and some others don't. SO WHAT!!

How about we just stop accusing people of bias and get back to reviewing optics without fear of getting blown out of the water.

Don

Don: I am not insane. I found his review grossly unfair - he panned almost everything about the binocular - and was searching for an explanation. That's all.

[Donzo98]

Don: I am not insane. I found his review grossly unfair - he panned almost everything about the binocular - and was searching for an explanation. That's all.

Leif...

I am sorry for the harsh words. I honestly believe John was giving us his HONEST opinion of the FL's. I would expect any of us to give a NON BIASED opinion of optics they review. I dont understand what you mean by unfair, he just reported what he saw.

I have read many of your posts and find them to be very helpful... you obviously know what you are talking about when it comes to bins.

It just seemed to me that you jumped on John irrationally... isnt it possible that he really believes what he wrote??? ;)

I hope that opinions given about new products wil continue to flourish on the forum... I find them helpful.

Don

[Leif]

Leif...

I am sorry for the harsh words. I honestly believe John was giving us his HONEST opinion of the FL's. I would expect any of us to give a NON BIASED opinion of optics they review. I dont understand what you mean by unfair, he just reported what he saw.

I have read many of your posts and find them to be very helpful... you obviously know what you are talking about when it comes to bins.

It just seemed to me that you jumped on John irrationally... isnt it possible that he really believes what he wrote??? ;)

I hope that opinions given about new products wil continue to flourish on the forum... I find them helpful.

Don

Don: There's no need to apologise as your posting did not seem at all rude. And mine to John was not intended to be rude either. He is entitled to an opinion, as we all are. However, if he dares to criticise the Nikon 8x32 SE, then I really will get mad ... ;)

[Donzo98]

However, if he dares to criticise the Nikon 8x32 SE, then I really will get mad ... ;)

At least we now have some stable ground... I LOVE THE 8x32 SE too!! ;) BTW, is the SE much better optically than the 8x32 LX? I have been toying with the idea of picking up a pair of the LX's to try...

Don

[AlanFrench]

At least we now have some stable ground... I LOVE THE 8x32 SE too!! ;) BTW, is the SE much better optically than the 8x32 LX? I have been toying with the idea of picking up a pair of the LX's to try...

Don

See http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/roof_vs_porro.html

Clear skies, Alan

[John Traynor]

How would you compare the edge sharpness (or the lack of it) of the Ultravids and the FLs?

Ilkka

Ilkka,

IMHO, the Ultravid is uniformly sharp across a fairly wide sweet spot. The EL's sweet spot is clearly larger, but then the Ultravid is probably a tad sharper. Therein lies the dilemma if you're choosing between these two bins. A side-by-side personal evaluation is the only way to choose between them.

The single 8X42 FL I tested had an extremely small sweet spot. I also felt that as soon as the image started to degrade off-center, it degraded rapidly. Before anyone jumps up and down again in anger, let me say that the image was not completely degraded nor was it unusable. It's not like a big black spot shows up...it's just not as sharp off-center as far as one would expect from a $1400 binocular. Clearly, the Ultravid is much better and the EL even more so in this department.

Hope that helps!

John

[Pinewood]

John,

Thank you for sharing your experiences, observations, comparisons and analyses in search of a new glass. It is all food for thoughtful consideration and discussion.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

[iporali]

John,
Thanks for the information. This edge sharpness thing is really interesting and there are certainly many different viewpoints. I use both the Nikon SEs and the LX/HGs, which both are known for their good edge "performance". I am not sure if it is just me but I do have some problems to actually use that peripherial sharpness. I am totally happy with both of them but I feel that both of the Nikons force my eyes to stick in the center to feel comfortable and to have a good view. The SEs tend to black-out and the HGs have lateral color IF I move the eyes instead of the binos. My old and cheap russian 8x30s (as well as many other cheap binos) were somehow more tolerant in this respect - and maybe also the 42mm Swaro ELs (of the top makes).

Ilkka

[hinnark]

See http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/roof_vs_porro.html

Clear skies, Alan

I can confirm the findings of Diane and Michael Porter. I saw exactly the same when comparing 10x42 SE and HG/Venturer.

Back to topic. I wonder why no reviewer - not even the professional ones - is talking about a problem I see in comparing a 8,5 magnification binocular with a 8x. Nobody seems to worry about the 0,5 difference in magnification and what consequences for the optical systems this might have. I`ve learned once comparing binos of different magnification or aperture is like comparing apples with oranges.

Steve

[mak]

John.

You have not mentioned the close focus of the FL, which is less than some others that you mention. I think you should back up your findings in detail (measured would be good, personally I do not like subjective views), or are you an expert? I too thought the same as Leif, but you have replied to this, thank you.

Fast focus, is apparently what birders have asked for, certainly in the UK, yet you do not like it, so be it. You GUESS shallow depth of field, what is the DoF of the EL, Ultravid and FL (surely this can differ with individuals).

You say about the softness on the edges, do you know why this should happen, please explain? The comment that the body build was inferior. Is this fact and if so why?

What about heat co-efficient, is the magnesium body more robust for knocks, does it have any "give" I have been informed that polyamide has some "give", surely this is better (but I do not know, please help).

I have in the past asked you to confirm your findings with some of your reviews as some of your comments put doubt in my mind, to date I have not seen this (if I have missed it my apologies).

You mention Kimmo's comments, I have seen his review in Alula on the FL's, very interesting, perhaps you should have a look.

[Grousemore]

I was reluctant to reply on this Thread, for the reasons expressed by Hinnark above; I have been trying a pair of 10x42 FL's for the past week and have no experience of the 8x to which John refers.
However, his comments about the "overall build quality" would refer to the 10x as well, so I think it fair to say his comments are bizarre. My first impressions were how GOOD the build quality was! I've been using Zeiss Victory 2's for some time and have been very impressed all round, but the quality of the FL's and particularly the handling and ergonomics were for me, a step up in class.
One surprise for me, was how light they feel round the neck, perhaps something to do with weight distribution.
I spent a few hours or so at the weekend birding with a friend using Swaro 10x42 EL's, a very fine glass, but to say the build quality was better than the FL's is simply not true in my opinion, or that of the Swaro owner.
The diopter adjustment is fine too, so didn't understand that point.

The only point in all of the above is that if you are buying new bins, don't be put off by negative comments of others. Try them all out and make up your own mind.

ps. For what it's worth,try as I may, I can find no evidence of this supposed lack of edge sharpness on the pair of FL's that I've been trying.

[pduxon]

I'm often puzzled by some of the optics threads on BF.

People rave about the latest bin/scope as being so much better than the competition, you would get the opinion that a certain bin is light years a head of the competition. But a reviewer like Kimmo (Alula), although finding the FL the best bin, doesn't reckon they're worth upgrading to from one of the other top bins. Hope I've quoted him correctly.

At the end of the day line up the contenders, if you're after a top scope or bin we know what they are. Then try them. It doesn't matter what anyone tells you believe your own eyes.

If you can't try all of them then at least try some of them to find out which folks opinions match your own.

For what its worth the 8x42 FL I tried at Birdfair was excellent, I noticed no loss of quality at the edge. It fitted my hands superbly and was well made. The weight was excellent.

[robinm]

At the end of the day line up the contenders, if you're after a top scope or bin we know what they are. Then try them. It doesn't matter what anyone tells you believe your own eyes.Totally agree. If your eyes tell you a particular optic is the best for you go with it.

[Leif]

At least we now have some stable ground... I LOVE THE 8x32 SE too!! ;) BTW, is the SE much better optically than the 8x32 LX? I have been toying with the idea of picking up a pair of the LX's to try...

Don

Don: I have owned an 8x32 LX and own an 8x32 SE. Many people reckon the LX is first rate, and certainly IMO it is perhaps the best in its class. See Kimmo's review on Alula. (Excellent reviews.) However IMO the LX has slightly lower resolution (or at least mine did) and I also see a lot of CA through it and that troubles me. However they are otherwise first rate and competitively priced. Build seemed excellent. Some people disagree so you should try them for yourself. I think Pete Duxon has a pair.

[pduxon]

I think Pete Duxon has a pair.

indeed he does.

But again try before you buy!!

[Curtis Croulet]

pduxon: I think you've got it right. If you (rhetorical "you") have any of the recent top bins and you're happy, then there's no reason to even think about the FLs or anything else. If you have a cheap or older bin, then might want to investigate the latest models -- or perhaps not, if you're worried about explaining to your wife where all that money went.

As to the rest of this thread -- except for my absolute confidence in John Traynor's integrity, I'd be inclined to think that much of what he wrote about the FL came out of thin air. The statement about "build quality" is perhaps even more baffling than the other remarks. True, the exterior of the FL is pretty basic -- no cute "Ultravid" or fancy "Swarovski" tags -- just plain black rubber. Perhaps the feeling is that a bin this expensive should have more "pizzazz." But I see no poorly-fitted joints, no blemishes. Between all of those extended holidays the Germans get (I'm told), they still do fine work, well up to their traditional reputation.

The focus is very much a matter of taste. The quickness of the FL is reasonably similar to other bins in our house, so I experienced no surprise or disappointment. I can achieve a good level of sharpness on any subject almost instantaneously. Once to that point, the slightest nudge one way or the other on the focus will cause the focus to "snap" to another level of resolution that is truly extraordinary.

Then we come back to this off-axis sharpness thing. Until my FL arrived on 6 August, I never imagined I'd be spending such an enormous amount of time looking at the non-center (whoops -- "centre") of my binoculars. Maybe mine is the absolute best of the early production of the 8x42 FL. I wouldn't know. But I'd have to say that the quality of resolution for some distance off-axis is at the very least equal to what many other bins achieve on-axis. My temptation to also throw a bouquet to the Ultravid on this issue is tempered by my recollection of my in-store comparison of the Ultravid with my own Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class bins, where I found almost no aspect of the Leica, except FOV and elegance of finish, that was superior to the EORPC. And the Zeiss is resoundingly superior in every respect to the EORPC off-axis. It's longer since I've looked through the Swarovski EL, so I can't comment on it.

[Wine Man]

All I can say is that Mr Traynor's review is everything that regular readers of the binos section would have predicted, totally at odds with the findings of almost everyone else. One of the following is correct.
1: We are blind
2: Mr Traynor is blind
3: Somehing more sinister is occurring, as has been mentioned previously.

[Tim Allwood]

Good points Pete

I would always prefer to tsake tried and tested bins on my travels. I know my 7 x 42 dialyts can stand up to extreme humidity, deserts, cold, changes in altitude, and the rest. Optically they're great; amazingly bright and a huge FOV. I've said this many times before but my mate has had three Swarovskis fog up in South America. The old bins like Trinovids and dialyts work well in extreme situations, the newer bins aren't proven yet and not much of an improvement optically either, cetrtainly not to justify a change.

[helenol]

The quick focusing was one of the features I liked very much with the 8x42 FL´s. Another feature I like, more so now after using them on a regular basis, is the solid feel of them, without having the "weight" around my neck.

Grousemore made a good point when referring to people not being put off by negative comments when in the market for a pair of bins. I wasn´t, and I´m happy as Larry with my 8x42 FL´s

I also think that when purchasing a top end pair of bins, the differences between the various brands must be quite small so that one ultimately makes the choice based on whether the bins "feel" right. Personal choice isn´t it?

[chartwell99]

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the 8 x 42 FL compares to the 8 x 42 Nikon HG/LX? Yep, the Nikon is too heavy, suffers from chronic loose hinge problems, and lacks Euro-prestige but it strikes me that its overall optical quality and focus control should be hard to better.

[Jonathan B.]

At least we now have some stable ground... I LOVE THE 8x32 SE too!! ;) BTW, is the SE much better optically than the 8x32 LX? I have been toying with the idea of picking up a pair of the LX's to try...
Don

Don,

In my experience (contrary to some others here), the Porters are mistaken in their assessment of roof vs. porro. My first direct comparison of SE to LX was in 2000 at a Wild Birds Unlimited store in Dallas, TX, which gave me all the time I wanted to compare binoculars. By that point I had already narrowed my choice to the two Nikons. They had a martin house mounted to the top of a pole on their grounds, and I stood outside with a salesman for a very long time going back and forth between the binoculars. The 8x42 LX was brighter than the 8x32 SE. However, bare metal on the martin house was plain bare metal through the SE, while through the LX it was magenta. On other high-contrast subjects in the neighborhood (power lines against the sky, etc.), the SE exhibited virtually no CA to my eyes, while the LX showed magenta fringing, even when I moved the binocular around to see if I had not centered it perfectly.

One feature stood out quite clearly in comparing the two binoculars--the little SE was equally as sharp and contrasty as the LX. Incidentally, the salesman, who was extremely knowlegeable about binculars, agreed with all of my observations. I bought the SE from the shop before leaving.

Earlier this year I had a chance to compare my SE against the 8x32 LX, at Christopher's, in Norman, OK, where they have also been extremely nice about letting me handle things (and where I have also returned the favor by purchasing). The smaller LX also exhibits CA, and to me it did not seem as sharp or bright as the SE. The worst trait, however, is the extremely fast focus mechanism--the opposite problem to that in the original Swarovski EL. It takes so little movement of the focusing wheel to change focus, that for me it was hard to tell if I was getting any subject into perfect focus. As somebody else has said on these forums lately (and it may have been John), I did not get the sense that the LX "snapped" into focus, as does the SE. Mind you, I consider both LX models to be outstanding, but the SE is a marvel.

I have also been able to compare the SE 8x32 to the EL 8x32 and 8.5x42. Both of those are great binoculars, but again I did not think the EL 8x32 was as sharp or bright as the SE, and did not think the 8.5 was sharper or brighter. Leif has reported the same thing, and he owns both the SE 8x32 and EL 8.5x42.

I have said in another thread that the Ultravid 42mm was the first roof-prism binocular I tested which matched the SE for sharpness, brightness, and contrast, and I bought the 7x42. I look forward to seeing the FL to try the same comparisons I have made in the past.

I especially look forward to seeing the Ultravid 8x32 and FL 8x32. If any 32mm can match the SE, it would be one of those two. However neither of them is going to have the same superlative "3-D" image that the SE has at close ranges. That quality of the SE is almost indescribable--it provides a richness of image that I have not seen in any other binocular.

[Curtis Croulet]

Wine Man: John and I have an honest difference of opinion. I don't think there's anything "sinister" going on. It's important to note, too, that John has not looked through my bins nor I through the pair he tested. Maybe if I saw them, I'd agree. However, I'm gratified to learn that I'm not absolutely alone in my general satisfaction with the FL.

helenol: Your first paragraph could have been words out of my own mouth, concerning the focus and "feel." Glad to know I'm not alone on these issues, either.

[John Traynor]

Don,

In my experience (contrary to some others here), the Porters are mistaken in their assessment of roof vs. porro. My first direct comparison of SE to LX was in 2000 at a Wild Birds Unlimited store in Dallas, TX, which gave me all the time I wanted to compare binoculars. By that point I had already narrowed my choice to the two Nikons. They had a martin house mounted to the top of a pole on their grounds, and I stood outside with a salesman for a very long time going back and forth between the binoculars. The 8x42 LX was brighter than the 8x32 SE. However, bare metal on the martin house was plain bare metal through the SE, while through the LX it was magenta. On other high-contrast subjects in the neighborhood (power lines against the sky, etc.), the SE exhibited virtually no CA to my eyes, while the LX showed magenta fringing, even when I moved the binocular around to see if I had not centered it perfectly.

One feature stood out quite clearly in comparing the two binoculars--the little SE was equally as sharp and contrasty as the LX. Incidentally, the salesman, who was extremely knowlegeable about binculars, agreed with all of my observations. I bought the SE from the shop before leaving.

Earlier this year I had a chance to compare my SE against the 8x32 LX, at Christopher's, in Norman, OK, where they have also been extremely nice about letting me handle things (and where I have also returned the favor by purchasing). The smaller LX also exhibits CA, and to me it did not seem as sharp or bright as the SE. The worst trait, however, is the extremely fast focus mechanism--the opposite problem to that in the original Swarovski EL. It takes so little movement of the focusing wheel to change focus, that for me it was hard to tell if I was getting any subject into perfect focus. As somebody else has said on these forums lately (and it may have been John), I did not get the sense that the LX "snapped" into focus, as does the SE. Mind you, I consider both LX models to be outstanding, but the SE is a marvel.

I have also been able to compare the SE 8x32 to the EL 8x32 and 8.5x42. Both of those are great binoculars, but again I did not think the EL 8x32 was as sharp or bright as the SE, and did not think the 8.5 was sharper or brighter. Leif has reported the same thing, and he owns both the SE 8x32 and EL 8.5x42.

I have said in another thread that the Ultravid 42mm was the first roof-prism binocular I tested which matched the SE for sharpness, brightness, and contrast, and I bought the 7x42. I look forward to seeing the FL to try the same comparisons I have made in the past.

I especially look forward to seeing the Ultravid 8x32 and FL 8x32. If any 32mm can match the SE, it would be one of those two. However neither of them is going to have the same superlative "3-D" image that the SE has at close ranges. That quality of the SE is almost indescribable--it provides a richness of image that I have not seen in any other binocular.

Jonathan,

How uncanny that your observations are identical to mine. The SE is a marvel and it beats the LX/HG by a slight margin. On your advice, I compared my SE to the Ultravid 7X and your comparison was dead on. The Ultravid is one fine binocular.

The Swarovski 8X32 is not as bright as the 8X32 SE and I've observed that many times. At night, switching from an 8X32 Swaro to an 8.5 Swaro is like turning an extra light on. I haven't seen an X32 Ultravid and won't consider it because I wear eyeglasses. If it compares to the X42 then they may be wonderful.

Finally, your comments about fast focus mechanisms inhibiting your ability to attain a sharp image match my experience perfectly. I am addicted to the SE's fine tuning ability and that's one aspect of the EL I really liked. I know my eye's elasticity suffers from age, but I can still resolve extremely fine details at very long distances and a slow, precise focus is something I enjoy very much.

BTW, based on your reviews, I'm still thinking about a 7X or 8X Ultravid. After all, whatever roof I buy will only be used as an inclement weather backup to the SE!

I hope I wasn't too sinister.

John

PS
At the end of your post you captured the essence of the SE and Nikon should pay you to use it in their non-existent advertising of the SE.
"However neither of them is going to have the same superlative "3-D" image that the SE has at close ranges. That quality of the SE is almost indescribable--it provides a richness of image that I have not seen in any other binocular."

[Tim Allwood]

I think i too may get a pair of SEs for U.K. birding when finances allow. They do seem to be just about the best image around at the moment and nice and dinky too. And an absolute steal at the price!

[Leif]

John.

You have not mentioned the close focus of the FL, which is less than some others that you mention. I think you should back up your findings in detail (measured would be good, personally I do not like subjective views), or are you an expert? I too thought the same as Leif, but you have replied to this, thank you.

Fast focus, is apparently what birders have asked for, certainly in the UK, yet you do not like it, so be it. You GUESS shallow depth of field, what is the DoF of the EL, Ultravid and FL (surely this can differ with individuals).

You say about the softness on the edges, do you know why this should happen, please explain? The comment that the body build was inferior. Is this fact and if so why?

What about heat co-efficient, is the magnesium body more robust for knocks, does it have any "give" I have been informed that polyamide has some "give", surely this is better (but I do not know, please help).

I have in the past asked you to confirm your findings with some of your reviews as some of your comments put doubt in my mind, to date I have not seen this (if I have missed it my apologies).

You mention Kimmo's comments, I have seen his review in Alula on the FL's, very interesting, perhaps you should have a look.

I too would appreciate some details from John Traynor:

You say the build was not so good. What did you not like about the build?

You say the diopter is poorly designed. What aspect is poor? IMO it works just like the Swarovski EL one.

You say you did not like the focus and yet IMO the Nikon 8x32 SE, which you like, has a rather coarse focus comparable to the Zeiss FL. That is one aspect of the SE I do not like.

You said elsewhere you were suffering from allergies when you tried the Zeiss FL. (Was this an allergy to the Zeiss badge? Sorry, forget that one, I couldn't resist!) Were these ones that affected your eyes, or nose, or caused considerable discomfort? In my experience it is not worth testing an optical instrument if I have a cold or hay fever, or feel lousy.

Thanks, Leif

[John Traynor]

Greetings to Everyone,

I was going to reply to a particular post, but I changed my mind because I'm not interested in personal confrontations. If I want that I'll go to Usenet.

Everything I said about my reaction to the Zeiss FL had been said before. Go back and read other people's posts and you will find comments about build quality, sharpness issues, handling, fast focus, etc. The sample I picked up did not impress me and I said so. If my comments don't satisfy your personal needs, move on to a post that does. There is abundant positive commentary to chew on. Oh, before I forget, let me tell you how the positive FL commentary affects me.

I'm postponing any final decision until I can handle several FL units for myself, because I'd like to find one that matches the glowing reports I've read on this forum. I'm a happy victim of my own curiosity and I thought it more prudent to listen than insult. If I find one I like, I will be the first to report it. If I find more of the same, I'll report that too.

John

[1894]

Zeiss generaly have larger FOV than comparable Leica and Swaro. As an example the old and new Zeiss 7x42s have 150m whereas the 7x42 ultravid is 140m, the new FL 8x42 is 135m whereas the 8x42 UV and 8.5x42 EL are 130m

When I was talking to the repair manager of Zeiss UK about how this was possible he told me that the other companies 'clip' the image thereby removing spherical abberation in exchange for a reduced FOV, Zeiss goes for the increased FOV

My own 7x42BGATs are pretty distorted at the edge. For my hunting they are unsurpassed, the large FOV picks up the animal which you can then centre on.

[gorank]

now there are reviews of all the 42 mm FL:s (7x, 8x and 10x) at http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/.

[John Traynor]

I sampled a 7X, 8X and 10X Zeiss FL today. Clearly, they were better than the first one I looked at, and it's easy to see how the FL brightness and centerfield sharpness is addictive to many on the board.

I am not interested in a 10X so I have nothing to say about it. The 7X/8X models were in my hands long enough for me to conclude I'm not interested in either. I would not be comfortable with the touchy focus or the small sweet spot. I am also convinced the small sweet spot is not immediately evident when you pick up the bin because the centerfield sharpness and overall brightness are simply too seductive. I'm also convinced, after reading other comments, that many people are not bothered by a small sweet spot. Consider yourself fortunate because you have a broader range of choices.

I can see how many people would be very happy using this model bin, but I would caution everyone about using other people's numbers to evaluate top-rated bins. I found an Ultravid with beautiful focus action and, though I know it's seemingly brighter and sharper than the EL, there's something about the EL that makes for extremely easy viewing. Furthermore, if people purchased solely on other people’s numbers the EL would no longer have a market. The experts have rated the FL tops in several categories, so I’ll assume Zeiss will be happy with sales. I'm sure Leica and Swarovski will find their own customers.

That’s all I have to say publicly about the FL, except that I hope everyone who uses an FL enjoys them. I think that's the point of the exercise!

John

[Donzo98]

I sampled a 7X, 8X and 10X Zeiss FL today. Clearly, they were better than the first one I looked at, and it's easy to see how the FL brightness and centerfield sharpness is addictive to many on the board.

I am not interested in a 10X so I have nothing to say about it. The 7X/8X models were in my hands long enough for me to conclude I'm not interested in either.
John

Better be careful... you will get accused of working for an optics company again!!! ;)

Don

[Leif]

Well I have had time to get a closer look at a Zeiss 8x42 FL. The build quality really is first rate, with a very smooth and fast focus, and really excellent optics. Contrast is exceptional. Chromatic aberration is almost absent. Depth of field is excellent too. I suspect the very fast focus could trick someone into thinking the DOF was small. There is some edge softness but it's not an issue for me. (Anyone sensitive to such things would be better off with the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL.) I have no idea why the diopter adjustment could be described as poorly designed. Zeiss seem to have borrowed many ideas from the Swarovski EL range including the design of the diopter adjustment and the rubber objective caps. The screw in screw out eye tubes with intermediate click stops are AFAIK unique to Zeiss and rather good.

Perhaps the only issue with some people will be the fast focus which took me some time to get used to.

[John Traynor]

Well I have had time to get a closer look at a Zeiss 8x42 FL. The build quality really is first rate, with a very smooth and fast focus, and really excellent optics. Contrast is exceptional. Chromatic aberration is almost absent. Depth of field is excellent too. I suspect the very fast focus could trick someone into thinking the DOF was small. There is some edge softness but it's not an issue for me. (Anyone sensitive to such things would be better off with the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL.) I have no idea why the diopter adjustment could be described as poorly designed. Zeiss seem to have borrowed many ideas from the Swarovski EL range including the design of the diopter adjustment and the rubber objective caps. The screw in screw out eye tubes with intermediate click stops are AFAIK unique to Zeiss and rather good.

Perhaps the only issue with some people will be the fast focus which took me some time to get used to.

Leif,

I'm glad to hear you like your new bin. I know CA was always an issue with you and it sounds like you've got that demon under control with the FL. I've seen CA in really cheap bins and I know it would drive me mad to see it on a regular basis. Luckily, I don't have that problem.

Happy birding!

John

[razor6]

Interesting thread, as I am in the market for some new bins (7x or 8x). For those of you who have commented on the loss of edge sharpness on the new FL Zeiss bins, have you been able to compare that to the older Zeiss 7X42 BGATs? I have looked through a friend's pair many, many times and have detected no real loss of edge sharpness in the older BGATs. Sounds like Zeiss has another winner with the new FLs (esp. the close focus, wgt., no CA, and optics - at least at the center). If the new FLs realy do have the loss of edge sharpness, why did they take a step BACKWARD in optical performance?

Forgive me if this has been addressed in previous threads, but I get enthralled with these posts and sometimes have questions after hours of reading here.

[gorank]

its no step backwards...the 7x42 FL is better than the old 7x42 BGAT....better sharpness much less CA...lighter...better focus-wheel...etc..

[Alan M.]

Leif,

I'm glad to hear you like your new bin. I know CA was always an issue with you and it sounds like you've got that demon under control with the FL. I've seen CA in really cheap bins and I know it would drive me mad to see it on a regular basis. Luckily, I don't have that problem.

Happy birding!

John

I have owned a pair of Swarovski EL 8.5x42 for over a year now. What I like about them is the eye relief (I wear trifocals), the brightness, the lack of distortion on the sides, and so on. What has bothered me from the beginning is the 2.something turns of the focus wheel, much longer (and thus taking longer in time) than my previous bins. I have often wondered exactly what the advantage of this is. Do I get a sharper focus easier with them? Some respondents here and elsewhere talk about how one or two of the competition has a quicker focus and how the field suddenly "snaps in." Is this true or is it just that those bins with a quicker focus require a more expert feel, one that I might not have with my older eyes and these days possibly less precise fingers. I know the answer is to try out some of the new bins mentioned in this thread. Not as easy for some and even purchasing a new pair is not as easy for some. But maybe some replies here might help.

[John Traynor]

I have owned a pair of Swarovski EL 8.5x42 for over a year now. What I like about them is the eye relief (I wear trifocals), the brightness, the lack of distortion on the sides, and so on. What has bothered me from the beginning is the 2.something turns of the focus wheel, much longer (and thus taking longer in time) than my previous bins. I have often wondered exactly what the advantage of this is. Do I get a sharper focus easier with them? Some respondents here and elsewhere talk about how one or two of the competition has a quicker focus and how the field suddenly "snaps in." Is this true or is it just that those bins with a quicker focus require a more expert feel, one that I might not have with my older eyes and these days possibly less precise fingers. I know the answer is to try out some of the new bins mentioned in this thread. Not as easy for some and even purchasing a new pair is not as easy for some. But maybe some replies here might help.

Alan,

When a focus "snaps in" we are referring to a very sharp, clear image, not the speed at which that is achieved. Once you've seen it, it's what you'll always look for. The EL has that kind of image, so don't give it a second thought.

Focus speed is altogether different. I do not like a really fast focus because it's too hard for me to find the "perfect" setting and hold on to it. With a slower focus, like my SE or the EL, it's easier for me to find and hold a perfectly sharp focus. Small adjustments are also more forgiving with a slower focus. Others, obviously, prefer a speedy focus mechanism. Too bad they aren't adjustable!

John

[Rich N]

Now that I've had time to play with my Zeiss 10x42 FL I'm getting used to its fast focus. It is handy when i have my scope in one hand and I'm looking through the binocular with the other hand. I very much enjoy using the FL.

I find the focuser my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL a little slow but I don't mind the way it is. As mentioned earlier they are easy to look through. I like the 8.5x42 EL.

My Nikon 10x42 SE is very nice but the stiffness of the focuser really is annoying at times. My SE does show quite a bit of color when an object is a little off center. I first see a little blue and red on the side of the object closest to the edge of the field. Moving the object so that it is completely out of the center of the field, I see the blue and red on the side closest to the edge and yellow on the side closer to the center of the field. I think the eyepiece design has a lot to do with this color distribution.

I find it a little more difficult sometimes to get my eyes quickly into the right spot behind the eyepieces of the SE.
Maybe the fact that I wear eye glasses when using the SE makes positioning more difficult. It would be nice if they had screw up eyecups but the rubber material in the SEs eyecups is holding up well.

The apparent field isn't as wide in the SE as in the FL and EL. The edge of the field is sharper but I notice the relative narrowness of the field, when birding, before I notice the better edge sharpness. When looking a the stars I do notice and appreciate the sharpness near the edge of the field. There are times I wish my SE would focus a little closer. But, it is a very nice binocular.

I don't find the sharpness across the field a problem with either the Zeiss 10x42 FL or Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, when birding. The EL is very nice for astronomy. I've only briefly tried the FL looking at stars. I'll try it again when the Moon isn't so big and bright. The FL does do a nice job on the Moon. It gives a very sharp, high contrast view.

Rich

[Baysidebob]

I don't wish to complicate matters, but what was your impression of ease of use? This November I will be in the market for a pair of top-end, best-you-can-get bins. Problem is, I often must use them with one hand very quickly. Superb view is fine if you can get the view in the first place. I need something I can use with one hand while the other hand is otherwise occupied. All suggestions appreciated.

[Rich N]

I don't wish to complicate matters, but what was your impression of ease of use? This November I will be in the market for a pair of top-end, best-you-can-get bins. Problem is, I often must use them with one hand very quickly. Superb view is fine if you can get the view in the first place. I need something I can use with one hand while the other hand is otherwise occupied. All suggestions appreciated.

IMHO, the Zeiss FL, Swarovski EL and Leica Ultravid can be easily used with hand. You may find an 8x or 8.5x version is easier to use with one hand. I'm surprised how easy it is to use my new Zeiss 10x42 FL with one hand. At the binocular store I thought the FL might be a problem one handed but in the field it isn't a problem. I move my hand position around under the FL a little more so my thumb is a little more up the underside toward the focuser.

I hope you can try them before you buy.

Rich

[Rich N]

Hi BaysideBob,

I'm not sure if there is a store in the SF Bay area that has all three brands (Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski). Maybe some of the birding shops. Maybe Scope City in SF. I know Out of This World in Mendocino has them but it is a bit of a drive from Oakland. At least Mendocino is a beautiful part of the coast and you go through some beautiful country to get there.

Out of This World also has Nikon and several other brands.

Rich

[iambirding]

The EL does it all for me. I can pick it up, dial in the image and get on with viewing. For me, it is the better view.

John[/QUOTE]

excellent review hard to come by. direct and a great comparison.

[Robert L Jarvis]

I have a pair of El's 8.5 and have found them excellent. My wife has SLC 10x and they are very good. I have tried the other Bins and I settled on the Swaro. However for anyone choosing Bins you need to go to a dealer and sit down in front of a window and try every type, spend at least 30 minutes doing this. We all have little fiobles so what might be a good bin for one may not be good for some one else. Pete (Daffy Duck) nearly got it right, he said you pay you money and make your choice, no! you make your choice and then pay your money.

As an aside on this. and this is an endorsement for Swaro. My wifes bins had all the lenses scratched through careless cleaning. Got in touch with Swaro UK who quoted £65 to replace all objectives and eyepieces and this included sending them to Austria. The Bins were returned just over 2 weeks later with, and this has to be believed:-
All four lenses replaced
A totally new case, the latest style that is
New focusing wheel
New popup eyepieces
New objective lens covers
and last but no least the lenses were the latest swarobright coated type.

Yes all for £65, essentially new bins, by the way Swaro also serviced them completely. Now that is why I for one would endorse Swaro. Perhaps other members have similar experiences.

[pduxon]

Pete (Daffy Duck) nearly got it right, he said you pay you money and make your choice, no! you make your choice and then pay your money.


cheeky git !!!

[Robert L Jarvis]

Err, what's up Duck. Oughta trying eating carrots.