Alula review of Zeiss FL

[Ben O]

A number of people have mentioned this publication and that they have recently reviewed the FL binocular. Can anyone who has seen this review reveal the gist of the review and its conclusion? I expect there is a copyright issue so I don't expect word for word.

I am seriously considering the 8x42 FL and I am pretty much convinced from the numerous comments on birdforum that these are the ones to buy but I'd just like to hear about this review from Finland. I have looked through a pair of the 7x42FL and was astounded by the view compared to my current 8x42 BN's but just want that extra bit of magnification.

Thanks in advance,
Ben

[Curtis Croulet]

I am seriously considering the 8x42 FL and I am pretty much convinced from the numerous comments on birdforum that these are the ones to buy...(snip)

Thanks in advance,
Ben

You're a brave man! Anyone coming in from the outside and reading these threads might justifiably conclude that the FL is the worst piece of overpriced, underachieving junk to have hit the shelves in years. (Not my opinion, I hasten to add!)

[Ben O]

You're a brave man! Anyone coming in from the outside and reading these threads might justifiably conclude that the FL is the worst piece of overpriced, underachieving junk to have hit the shelves in years. (Not my opinion, I hasten to add!)

I didn't find that case. I have read everything I could on the FLs and with just one exception, everyone is full of praise for the FL. I will admit the unhappy chappy is very active so it does distort things but I go by the consensus of opinion rather than listening to a lone voice.
I'm glad you are enjoying your FLs :bounce:
Ben

[Donzo98]

You're a brave man! Anyone coming in from the outside and reading these threads might justifiably conclude that the FL is the worst piece of overpriced, underachieving junk to have hit the shelves in years. (Not my opinion, I hasten to add!)

No Curtis... I really don't think that anyone would conclude that at all... but if they carefully read your posts they might conclude you are OVERLY defensive about your expensive new purchase. It seems to me that you UNABLE to accept the possibility that these FL's have any faults whatsoever.

Isnt it just possible that someone actually believes that the FL's are not perfect????

Don

[Curtis Croulet]

Isnt it just possible that someone actually believes that the FL's are not perfect????

Don

Is it? :)

[Jonathan B.]

Isnt it just possible that someone actually believes that the FL's are not perfect????Don

Don,

Count me in among those who have doubts. I've had my hopes up that the FL will be truly great, as I already consider the Nikon SE and the Leica Ultravid to be. And as I have said elsewhere in this forum, I look forward to comparing the FL to those binoculars. However, the possible quality control issue that has surfaced with Henry's in-store test of the FL, together with repeated mention of a relatively narrow "sweet spot" in some people's FLs, has shaken my confidence.

Don't get me wrong. I have had serious issues with both Leica and Nikon--defective equipment with the former and horrible customer service with the latter--so I don't play favorites. But it seems to me that a company like Zeiss, issuing a product that is expected to change the way binoculars are made, would ensure that its initial offering of the product would be assembled and adjusted perfectly.

[Andy Bright]

Amazing that so few of the people with 'issues' against the FL haven't actually looked through one? Similarly curious that just two people who see a 'problem' have had such a huge impact on the threads against all those who have seen no problem AFTER using the bino.... another odd fact, probably of no relevance, is that of the geographical location of those with a concern.
Ben asked for any info on the Alula review... can we try to keep this thread on topic without the 'usual suspects' muddying the waters?

[pduxon]

Ben

I don't have the Alula review to hand so can't give you the full ins and outs. If you want more info then feel free to PM me and I'll give you a summary on individual points. The reviewer is Kimmo Absetz who is a member of the forum.

The conclusion was that the 8x42FL was in their view the best bin available. There was however a caveat to that and that was they didn't think serious birders with already good bins (And reading other Alula reviews I would take this to be stuff like the Swaro EL 8.5x42, Nikon HG 8x42 and 8x32, Trinovid 8x32) would consider upgrading. There hasn't been a review of the Ultravid 8x42 but some comments are made in the review of 10x bins.

If you haven't already check out the alula website its recently had a lot of past reviews added.

Hope that helps.

[Rich N]

A number of people have mentioned this publication and that they have recently reviewed the FL binocular. Can anyone who has seen this review reveal the gist of the review and its conclusion? I expect there is a copyright issue so I don't expect word for word.

I am seriously considering the 8x42 FL and I am pretty much convinced from the numerous comments on birdforum that these are the ones to buy but I'd just like to hear about this review from Finland. I have looked through a pair of the 7x42FL and was astounded by the view compared to my current 8x42 BN's but just want that extra bit of magnification.

Thanks in advance,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Sorry, I didn't see the review you mention.

I hope you can look through the 8x42 FL and 8x42 Ultravid.

I recently compared the 10x42 FL and 10x42 Ultravid at a store in northern California. The FL could focus a little closer and it had a little better resolution at the extreme edge of the field. Not that this matters in birding. Standing outside the store, two of us (bino nuts) were handing the FL and Ultravid back and forth to each other for nearly half an hour. The image through both was so close that we could not honestly say which was better. Maybe under different conditions we could see a difference. This was in the mid afternoon with a sunny, cloudless sky. We were looking at houses about 1/2 mile away across a small ocean bay and at old wooden water towers a few blocks away. Oh, and a good looking woman walking across the street. Yet another form of bird watching. ;)

I found the Leica 10x42 Ultravid more comfortable to hold. The only reason I bought the Zeiss FL was it had a long enough focusing run past infinity so that I could use them without my eye glasses (something I likely won't do most of the time). I didn't try the Ultravid for focusing pase infinity and I should have and not assumed they were like my Leica BNs in focuser travel. The Zeiss also focused a little closer.

I could be very happy with either the Zeiss 10x42 FL or the Leica 10x42 Ultravid. I'm seriously temped to buy a 10x42 Ultravid because I'm a Leica fan and I liked the way they felt. Althouth, it would likely be smarter to use my money on one of the new light weight (Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss) 8x32s and not another 10x42.

Hope this helps.

Good luck,
Rich

[pduxon]

Hi Althouth, it would likely be smarter to use my money on one of the new light weight (Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss) 8x32s and not another 10x42.


Rich I'd add in the new HGL 8x32 as well. Likely to be a lot cheaper.

[Rich N]

Rich I'd add in the new HGL 8x32 as well. Likely to be a lot cheaper.

Hi Pete,

Ok, I'll add the HGL to my list of 32s to look through. Is that a Nikon?

Thanks,
Rich

[pduxon]

Hi Pete,

Ok, I'll add the HGL to my list of 32s to look through. Is that a Nikon?

Thanks,
Rich

yup its a Nikon - not sure what the HGL will be called over there. Its the new lightweight version of the Venturer LX

[helenol]

Ben
I don't have the Alula review to hand so can't give you the full ins and outs. If you want more info then feel free to PM me and I'll give you a summary on individual points. The reviewer is Kimmo Absetz who is a member of the forum.

The conclusion was that the 8x42FL was in their view the best bin available. There was however a caveat to that and that was they didn't think serious birders with already good bins (And reading other Alula reviews I would take this to be stuff like the Swaro EL 8.5x42, Nikon HG 8x42 and 8x32, Trinovid 8x32) would consider upgrading. There hasn't been a review of the Ultravid 8x42 but some comments are made in the review of 10x bins.

.Pete, thanks for that. I was also wondering about the review. More out of curiosity than anything else. I think that's a fair point though, about considering upgrading, or not, as the case may be.

I get the feeling these bins have been better received in Europe than the States ;) As you know, I'm a happy chappy with my FL's :gh:

[Rich N]

I get the feeling these bins have been better received in Europe than the States ;) As you know, I'm a happy chappy with my FL's :gh:

Hi Helen,

Give us a little time and we will likely come along. We are a little slow over here. ;) I almost bought a Leica.

Rich

[helenol]

Hi Helen,

Give us a little time and we will likely come along. We are a little slow over here.

Rich
LOL ! I'm sure you will Rich. ;)

[Rich N]

LOL ! I'm sure you will Rich. ;)

Hi Helen,

A more serious answer, the number of retail stores selling Zeiss binoculars in the San Francisco Bay Area have been shrinking. IMHO, Zeiss is having a big problem in my area holding on to their retail outlets.

There were three retail stores selling Zeiss binoculars in the south S.F. Bay Area only a few years ago. The first to drop Zeiss was a telescope / binocular store. Within the last year, two gun/sporting goods stores have dropped Zeiss binoculars (and kept Swarovski). To my great surprise a store that is in the boonies (well, a very nice resort town on the California coast about 3.5 hours north of San Francisco) had Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and other brands of binoculars. I was in bino-holic heaven.

I can find almost anything in the S. F. Bay Area. The idea that Zeiss is having a hard time keeping retail outlets is amazing. It's not as if there aren't people here without a good amount of disposable income. There are also quite a few active birders in this area. Maybe Zeiss needs to change something about they way the market their binoculars on the west coast of the U.S.?

Rich

[helenol]

Rich, thanks for the reply.

I can feel a new thread coming on... "Zeiss US Marketing Strategies" ;)

[Andy Bright]

Ben

I don't have the Alula review to hand so can't give you the full ins and outs. If you want more info then feel free to PM me and I'll give you a summary on individual points. The reviewer is Kimmo Absetz who is a member of the forum.

The conclusion was that the 8x42FL was in their view the best bin available. There was however a caveat to that and that was they didn't think serious birders with already good bins (And reading other Alula reviews I would take this to be stuff like the Swaro EL 8.5x42, Nikon HG 8x42 and 8x32, Trinovid 8x32) would consider upgrading. .
Thats very reassuring to me, I'm not barking mad and blind... the review concludes exactly the same as my one, even to the point of saying that owners of high-end binos won't necessarily be rushing out to upgrade as the differences aren't huge (pretty obvious really, you can't get huge leaps in optical quality these days).
I expect Kimmo just waits for me to review something and works from that ;)

[Jonathan B.]

The idea that Zeiss is having a hard time keeping retail outlets is amazing.

Rich,

I have visited several shops in the Bay Area. There is a Wild Bird Center in Walnut Creek that had a very good selection of binoculars, including Zeiss, in the recent past. I was able to compare several Zeiss and Swarovski models there. I'm sure you have found that shop.

At the risk of sounding like the dreaded anti-Zeiss, let me suggest that you ask the proprietor of the Wild Bird Center in San Carlos why she no longer carries Zeiss. Let's put it this way: after many years selling optics, she is happy to carry two companies whose customer service she considers exceptional--Swarovski and Swift. One of the only shops in New Mexico that carries high-end binoculars used to handle Zeiss, but almost never does anymore. I asked one of the staff about it, and he said that they "never hear from the sales rep."

I am pleased to see your comments on FL vs. Ultravid. The Ultravid has had far less coverage in the forum than the FL. I hope Ben O. will try them both before making his purchase.

[helenol]

Rather than deviating from the original question regarding the Alula review in this thread, I've just started a new thread regarding Zeiss in the States:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=217146#post217146

[pduxon]

Thats very reassuring to me, I'm not barking mad and blind...
..............

I expect Kimmo just waits for me to review something and works from that ;)

I've had my doubts ;)

Actually Andy I thought your review was rather good!! Fancy a job working for Birdwatching?

[Rich N]

Rich,

I have visited several shops in the Bay Area. There is a Wild Bird Center in Walnut Creek that had a very good selection of binoculars, including Zeiss, in the recent past. I was able to compare several Zeiss and Swarovski models there. I'm sure you have found that shop.

At the risk of sounding like the dreaded anti-Zeiss, let me suggest that you ask the proprietor of the Wild Bird Center in San Carlos why she no longer carries Zeiss. Let's put it this way: after many years selling optics, she is happy to carry two companies whose customer service she considers exceptional--Swarovski and Swift. One of the only shops in New Mexico that carries high-end binoculars used to handle Zeiss, but almost never does anymore. I asked one of the staff about it, and he said that they "never hear from the sales rep."

I am pleased to see your comments on FL vs. Ultravid. The Ultravid has had far less coverage in the forum than the FL. I hope Ben O. will try them both before making his purchase.

At the risk of offending and being off topic I'll just say that Walnut Creek and Palo Alto are not "just across town".
I wouldn't have even thought of looking in Walnut Creek for a binocular. Palo Alto is in a part of the SF Bay Area where buying a high end binocular shouldn't a problem (if they can find it).

There is the problem of people looking at a binocular in a local store and then buying on the net for a few dollars less.

I'm not sure of the cause of the problem but not finding a store selling high end Zeiss in Palo Alto is amazing. A Zeiss FL would be a Christmas stocking stuffer.

Rich

[Ben O]

I have just picked up my Zeiss 8x42 FL and they really were worth the long wait for new stock to arrive.
As a lifelong Leica fan I did compare with the Ultravid but found the FL's a fraction brighter and had less colour fringing in difficult conditions. I thought that if I am making such a big investment, I may as well get the best to my eyes and forget about brand loyalty.

I did eventually read the Alula review in full and it seems as if Kimmo didn't think the 'hotspot' was going to be a problem for many as it didn't really get a mention. I can't see any problem but maybe I am not using them correctly, or wrongly? I have definitely seen far worse binos in my lifetime as far as edge distortion.

Anyway, back to my new FL binos. Took them out today in the overcast conditions that are hanging around down here in darkest Croydon. Not a great deal around but a male g-s woodpecker making a lot of noise from the top of a tree maybe 40 yards away. Wow, the breast of this bird was brilliant white that made a mockery of the conditions, the detail in the red nape was obvious. Not a trace of colour fringing and as crisp as can be imagined. I took my BNs with me and the view was rather lifeless and dark and lacked the ooomph, for lack of a better description, of the FL.

The focus wheel on the FL was just right for my use, keeping a fast moving woodpigeon in focus as it flew towards my position was effortless.

I found the eyepiece position to suit my eyes on the 2nd click stop, not fully extended.

Funny how a new pair of binos makes you want to see every bird again, even something as common as a Starling.

So another happy user and I don't care what they say ;)

Ben

[Andy Bright]

I took my BNs with me and the view was rather lifeless and dark and lacked the ooomph, for lack of a better description, of the FL.


Ben
Ooomph seems a good enough word to me :)
I also have the eyecup setting the same as yourself.
Regards,
Andy

[normjackson]

Compared Ben O's "ooomph" with Andy Bright's "Ooomph". Are we looking at sample variation here or is this some form of sentence edge distortion? :h?: