Zeiss FL 8X32 and 8X42 user feedback

[sean davis]

Firstly I live in a area where the nearest stockist is about 3000 km away so I do not have the chance to try before I buy. I buy many products sight unseen and that is a fact of life for me. to this end I rely on posts and reviews by others and I sometimes post to give others the same information that I sometimes seek.

I recently purchased both the 8x32 and 8x42 FL bins and was able to fairly extensively test them both side by side in the field under a variety of conditions. Comparison was not made against any other binocular.

Firstly the view through both under all conditions is outstanding. Optically there are very nice to use. Absolutely no complaints or concerns at all.

The sweet spot is simply not an issue, and never ever noticeable, with either model.

In low light there was surprisingly no noticeable advantage with the larger 8x42 which also has a theoretical advantage in the techology used in the prisms. The 8x42 simply does not seem to provide a brighter image in light levels that are usable. They are both very good indeed.

Size, the 8x32 clearly wins. It is compact and very easily handled. The 8X42 is a little oversized in comparison which makes me reach for the 8x32 if given the chance.

Eyecups. They are different in size and both suffer from lack of a firm stop to maintain the desired setting. The smaller 8x32 has larger eyecups which seem preferable to the smaller cups on the 8x42 that go into my sockets. But both work well except they do not hold their setting and continually have to be checked for correct eye relief setting. In the end I found it easier to just have the cups wound right out and find that they somehow wind back in a setting or two and have to be wound back out during use.

Diopter adjustment. The 8x32 dipopter wheel stays put but the 8x42 sometimes comes out and if not careful the diopter is set instead of the focus. It is simply not I would call a good design but not a real problem. Something that can be got used to - provided it does not get looser/worse with use.

Focus mechanism. Now this is the biggest suprise of the unwanted kind. Four days into use on a 16 day trip, from new but under dusty conditions, the 8x32 focus wheel became gritty and stiffer. In alternately rotating the focus and diopter adjustment back and forth in the hope that it would become smooth again the focus /wheel mechanism partially popped out. The internal workings were partially revealed to show what appeared to be white grease and plastic cogs. The focus syncronisation between each side was lost and the whole mechanism thereafter spun (when it should not) during focus. Now the focus does not work properly and the diopter has to be continually reset. Simply put, the focus is cactus and they will go back for repair or exchange.

I am dissapointed with the focus failure, but this will of course be fixed.


Sean

[raymondjohn]

Sean

What do you think cased the problem, the dust or unreliable mechanics.

best wishes

raymondjohn

[sean davis]

Sean

What do you think cased the problem, the dust or unreliable mechanics.

best wishes

raymondjohn

John

I dont really know the answer. I dont know if I would conclude that the mechanics are unreliable becuase I have not heard of another with the same problem. But I would be keen to hear if others have been using the FL for a while and whether they think dust sealing is an issue.

Sean

[dogfish]

John

I dont really know the answer. I dont know if I would conclude that the mechanics are unreliable becuase I have not heard of another with the same problem. But I would be keen to hear if others have been using the FL for a while and whether they think dust sealing is an issue.

Sean

Can't comment on dust sealing, but I had an unfortunate experience with the focus/diopter mechanism on my FL 7x42s, bought last October (perhaps an early model?). After a few months of use the focus became rather rough; I sent the bins back to Zeiss UK, who sent them to Germany for repair. When they came back the focus was better (though rather stiff) but the diopter mechanism would no longer click into the eyesight position and stay there. At this point, Zeiss UK promptly replaced my bins with a new pair, so I have no complaints about Zeiss UK. However, my opnions about the engineer who did the work in Germany is, shall we say, less positive.

Other users have complained that the diopter ring 'lifts' out of position in use. My feeling is that the focus/diopter mechanism is not as robust as that of other top of the range makes. Check it before buying.

My new bins are fine though; very smooth focus and no problems with the diopter mechanism, though I prefer the very positive way the Leica and Swarovski mechanisms click into place.

Sean

[Otto McDiesel]

Other users have complained that the diopter ring 'lifts' out of position in use. My feeling is that the focus/diopter mechanism is not as robust as that of other top of the range makes. Check it before buying.



I had a 10x42 FL for a few days and I did not like the focuser. I am critical of the lack of pro-active design philosophy: just design the damn thing so that nothing happens to it in the future.

[IanF]

I have had a pair of Zeiss 8x42FL's for two weeks now.

My initial thoughts were that I preferred my trusty Leica 8x32's which I have owned for several years preferring the greater depth of field of the Leicas and the warmer more natural colours. However I decided to persevere with the FLs and whilst it's still early days I must admit they are growing on me. I tend to reach for them now first and also leave the Leicas at home.

I have to agree that the optics are superb.

I do like the brighter optics of the FLs certainly for evening viewing and even at dusk proper - they're ideal for watching the birds coming in to roost. Last week I went on a Nightjar watch and they proved their worth as the light faded, giving a discernable view that other binos couldn't match. I find the very crisp optics give more a feeling of a small spotting scope rather than just binoculars.

The eyecups haven't really been an issue as being a spectacle wearer the are left fully down. Diopter adjustment I set when I took them out of the box and it hasn't moved since. I found it very positive to set and there hasn't been a hint of movement since. The focus control seems perfect for my use.

Overall they sit very well in the hand with the rubber coating giving a firm grip. The objective covers are a good fit too.

My only gripe as such is the rain guard over the eyecups - it's a little too large meaning it comes free too easily. I'd have preferred a slightly snugger fit - but really it's easily addressed and only a minor point.

It will be interesting to see how they do after a couple of months use - so far so good :t:

[kabsetz]

Sean and all,

Not to comment on much anything else, but I'm more than a bit dismayed and surprised if the cogs in the Zeiss FL focus mechanism indeed are plastic. I'm conservative enough in things mechanical to think that while plastics may have their uses and even be superior to metals in some applications, gears do not fall under that category of applications.

Kimmo

[Bob McKay]

I have had a pair of Zeiss 8x42FL's for two weeks now.

...
My only gripe as such is the rain guard over the eyecups - it's a little too large meaning it comes free too easily. I'd have preferred a slightly snugger fit - but really it's easily addressed and only a minor point....
:t:

I too find the rainguard too large. How did you easily address it Ian?
Bob

[Leif]

I too find the rainguard too large. How did you easily address it Ian?
Bob

You could perhaps stick some insulation tape on the insides of the rainguard? When my 75-150 zoom tromboned too easily, I stuck some tape on and hey presto, problem solved.

Leif

[henry link]

The 32mm FL's have a larger diameter eyecup and rainguard compared to earlier 42mm's. Zeiss-USA told me Zeiss planned to switch to the larger eyecup and and rainguard on the 42mm's. Could this be a mismatch with a small eyecup and large rainguard? The large rainguard would be around 2 or 3mm too big for the small eyecup. My small rainguard is vey tight on the small eyecup.

[Curtis Croulet]

Sean and all,

Not to comment on much anything else, but I'm more than a bit dismayed and surprised if the cogs in the Zeiss FL focus mechanism indeed are plastic. I'm conservative enough in things mechanical to think that while plastics may have their uses and even be superior to metals in some applications, gears do not fall under that category of applications.

Kimmo

I'm not an expert on plastics, but not all plastics are equal. Some are extremely tough and well-suited for light-duty bearing surfaces.

[IanF]

I too find the rainguard too large. How did you easily address it Ian?
Bob
Similar solution to Leif - I just used self adhesive velcro tape on the inside of the rain guard - just the soft bit rather than the hooked side! Fitted all around the inside it makes a nice cushioned fit.

[IanF]

The 32mm FL's have a larger diameter eyecup and rainguard compared to earlier 42mm's. Zeiss-USA told me Zeiss planned to switch to the larger eyecup and and rainguard on the 42mm's. Could this be a mismatch with a small eyecup and large rainguard? The large rainguard would be around 2 or 3mm too big for the small eyecup. My small rainguard is vey tight on the small eyecup.
I do wonder Henry - perhaps they only did a one-size fits all!

A shame as that really is the only thing I find as a niggle.

The issue of using plastic cogs is a little worrying though on such a high end/priced item - if correct. I've never found plastic parts in anything to be very durable - especially so in optics.

[denco@comcast.n]

Sean and all,

Not to comment on much anything else, but I'm more than a bit dismayed and surprised if the cogs in the Zeiss FL focus mechanism indeed are plastic. I'm conservative enough in things mechanical to think that while plastics may have their uses and even be superior to metals in some applications, gears do not fall under that category of applications.

Kimmo


Are you sure the gears are plastic or are you just theorizing that they are. I would like to find out if they really are plastic.

Dennis

[kabsetz]

I was only commenting on what Sean said in post #1. I have not taken apart a Zeiss FL - and don't intend to.

Kimmo

[denco@comcast.n]

I was only commenting on what Sean said in post #1. I have not taken apart a Zeiss FL - and don't intend to.

Kimmo


I e-mailed Zeiss asking them if the focusing gears are plastic on the Victory FL series. I am really curious to see if they are. If I get a reply I will post it.

[sean davis]

Denco and all

Please post your reply from Zeiss about the cogs. Note I said 'appeared to be white grease and plastic'. Also its the grease that concerns me more.

The rainguards are not interchangeable. It is not one size fits all. The smaller ones a tight fit. The larger ones a loose fit.

The bins are now in for warranty and I am waiting for a response.

Sean

[IanF]

...................The issue of using plastic cogs is a little worrying though on such a high end/priced item - if correct. I've never found plastic parts in anything to be very durable - especially so in optics.
In response to this query Zeiss confirmed that plastic is not used in the cog mechanism, rather brass and aluminium. Anyone attending the Bird Fair at Rutland later this month will have the opportunity to view the construction on the Zeiss stand and have the opprotunity to ask questions of the technical staff.

[Mike Penfold]

From at least October, 2004 to May, 2005, Zeiss out-of-warranty product repair estimates were provided after the unit arrived in Germany, where actual repairs were also completed -- for product purchased through an authorized Zeiss dealer. The Zeiss warranty strictly covered manufacturing defects only, and out-of-warranty repairs were expensive (hundreds of dollars) and slow (five months in one example).

However, at the following undated website, Zeiss explicitly outlines that buying grey market Zeiss products penalizes the consumer: grey market product repairs need to be shipped to (Guess where?) Germany, rather than repaired in the US: <www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/contents-frame/25d4cad22eaa80485256ce8007a8f73>. Using <zeiss warranty> as a search phrase in Google, this was the eighth item, titled "Document: Consumer Alert".

The optical quality of Zeiss scopes and binoculars is stunning. However, another birder dropped his 10x42 FLs a short distance on to soft ground, putting them out of alignment, while Swarovski ELs, Leica Ultravids, and Nikon HGLs/Premier LXs seem to be built like tanks -- and two of these have no-fault warranties.

Any comments on the current build quality of Zeiss 42FLs would be appreciated.

Optical performance and build quality aside, is anyone seeing positive change in Zeiss service? If not, other brands are more attractive, or a consumer could buy the bargain grey market Zeiss product, skip out-of-warranty service in Germany in the event of an accident, seeing the lack of service cost as a discount on a new binocular -- in other words, treat it like a toaster.

Mike

[Andrew Rowlands]

However, another birder dropped his 10x42 FLs a short distance on to soft ground, putting them out of alignment, while Swarovski ELs, Leica Ultravids, and Nikon HGLs/Premier LXs seem to be built like tanks - ... Was this a standardised test, Mike?

Did all the mentioned brands have the same drop?

Andy.

[Mike Penfold]

Good one, Andy.

The same birder (not me, thankfully) left his 10x42 ELs on top of his car, and drove away. The ELs slipped off the car at low speed, and were scratched but functioning well. Another local birder demonstrates his Ultravids by slamming them against the side of a table, commenting, "That's what you pay the big bucks for."

While this anecdotal information is accurate as far as it goes, you're right, it's not conclusive. The objective of the post (short of a drop test -- hey, maybe one exists) is to increase the amount of data to a point where a consumer would make a reasonable conclusion. I'd prefer to buy FLs, but not if they're going to be out of alignment if they drop from the car seat onto the floor, and not remotely close to list price if repair estimates are done when the product reaches Germany, and out-of-warranty service is expensive and slow.

I'm interested in the current build quality and current warranty service for Zeiss 42 FLs. Like any other manufacturer, Zeiss is not deaf to improvement.

Mike

[Curtis Croulet]

My 8x42 FL has taken a couple of short tumbles out of the car and onto the ground with no problems. "Seem to be built like tanks" does not constitute a comparative test. Maybe they will fare better than the Zeiss, but you're going to have to drop them to find out.

[Sailcat]

As someone who is in the market for a pair of premium 8x42 binoculars, I am somewhat dismayed to discover that Zeiss glasses might be fragile, their warrantee limited in coverage, and their service ponderously slow. I would agree that the events described above are anecdotal, however it points to some apparent flaws in their product and service. I am, therefore, unconvinced of the quality of Zeiss binoculars. Am I being too hasty, or is this an accurate perception?

[Leif]

As someone who is in the market for a pair of premium 8x42 binoculars, I am somewhat dismayed to discover that Zeiss glasses might be fragile, their warrantee limited in coverage, and their service ponderously slow. I would agree that the events described above are anecdotal, however it points to some apparent flaws in their product and service. I am, therefore, unconvinced of the quality of Zeiss binoculars. Am I being too hasty, or is this an accurate perception?

The idea that any high quality binocular might be fragile is ridiculous. Incidentally there are similar posts on BF about other makes too (Leica, Nikon etc).

My experience in the UK is that Nikon service is VERY slow, and I would not sing the praises of Leica service. I have no idea about Zeiss service (never needed it), but if service matter to you, then Swarovski is the path to take if BF members and optical retailers are anything to go by.

Leif

[Sailcat]

Thank you for your kind reply, Leif. I have read/heard that Nikon service in the states is good, but I am not sure about Zeiss and Leica. It is also reassuring to know that Swarovski's service is fine. My opinion is, when you are buying an expensive item that has the potential for rough treatment during normal use or by accident, its parent company's service policy and warrantee coverage is important. I don't intend to abuse my binoculars, and I'm fairly sure that birders who damage theirs usually don't intend abuse, either. Still, it's comforting to know one will receive quick and reliable support from the parent company in the event of an accident. As for Zeiss' fragility, you have my apologies: I meant no disrespect. I was asking if I was drawing a wrong conclusion from the experiences of one or two other Zeiss owners. Obviously, I had: I stand thoroughly corrected. Again, thank you for reply.

[Mike Penfold]

I'd be happy to provide the material which substantiates statements of fact in posts #19 and #21.

The main problem with any one person's accurate anecdotal information is its limited nature; the objective of the posts is to obtain a more representative body of current information about Zeiss 42 FL durability and service.

Don't get me wrong: in a hand-held comparison with the slow-focusing older version of the Swarovski 10x42 EL , using an Edmund Industrial Optics Magnifier Quality Resolution Chart (the credit card size #701158-1, based on the 1951 USAF Test Pattern), at about 15 feet, the view through a Zeiss 10x42 FL was about the same IMO, but the FLs eyerelief was better for me, and I liked the focus snap.

Leif, do have current information about problems with the no-fault warranties from Leica and Nikon?

Mike

[Leif]

Thank you for your kind reply, Leif. I have read/heard that Nikon service in the states is good, but I am not sure about Zeiss and Leica. It is also reassuring to know that Swarovski's service is fine. My opinion is, when you are buying an expensive item that has the potential for rough treatment during normal use or by accident, its parent company's service policy and warrantee coverage is important. I don't intend to abuse my binoculars, and I'm fairly sure that birders who damage theirs usually don't intend abuse, either. Still, it's comforting to know one will receive quick and reliable support from the parent company in the event of an accident. As for Zeiss' fragility, you have my apologies: I meant no disrespect. I was asking if I was drawing a wrong conclusion from the experiences of one or two other Zeiss owners. Obviously, I had: I stand thoroughly corrected. Again, thank you for reply.

Hi Sailcat: You certainly have no need to apologise to me! Yes I agree that service does matter, and yes it would be nice not to need it. I don't doubt that some people have had problems with Zeiss FL bins, but I am sure that if you search through BF you will get a fair impression of each brand. There have been a few reports of problems with the Zeiss focus/diopter problem, but most users seem satisfied with them. You will also find some reports of problems with other brands on BF and its best not to take them in isolation otherwise you will conclude that they are all duff!

Leif

[Sailcat]

Thanks, Leif. I have learned to tread lightly when asking delicate questions regarding a hobbyist's equipment, whether it is a birder's glasses or a sailer's boat. The wrong question, however innocent, can result in an unintended quarrel! My reason for asking, however, is that I am planning to purchase a pair of roof prism binoculars in the 7x or 8x range sometime soon. I currently have a Nikon Premier 10x42LX and, while it is a very solid and mechanically sound bino, I am a bit put off by its tendency to paint a tiny fringe of color on bright, high contrast objects, even on axis. I am otherwise happy with it, and I do not plan on replacing it anytime soon. I am wondering, though, if there are better choices for my next purchase, hence the reason behind my original...and clumsily phrased...question. You've been very helpful, and Mike is quite right about the dangers of accepting at face value a small sample of anectdotal information. I will continue to lurk and learn from the seasoned veterans on this forum. Thanks again!

[Leif]

Thanks, Leif. I have learned to tread lightly when asking delicate questions regarding a hobbyist's equipment, whether it is a birder's glasses or a sailer's boat. The wrong question, however innocent, can result in an unintended quarrel! My reason for asking, however, is that I am planning to purchase a pair of roof prism binoculars in the 7x or 8x range sometime soon. I currently have a Nikon Premier 10x42LX and, while it is a very solid and mechanically sound bino, I am a bit put off by its tendency to paint a tiny fringe of color on bright, high contrast objects, even on axis. I am otherwise happy with it, and I do not plan on replacing it anytime soon. I am wondering, though, if there are better choices for my next purchase, hence the reason behind my original...and clumsily phrased...question. You've been very helpful, and Mike is quite right about the dangers of accepting at face value a small sample of anectdotal information. I will continue to lurk and learn from the seasoned veterans on this forum. Thanks again!

Sailcat: You really are best to try them for yourself rather than rely on our biases. Leif

[Mike Penfold]

BTW, a person who sees a lot of Swarovski ELs suggested that the eyecups be in the retracted position when the binocular isn't being used; i.e., not secured by a strap/harness. Apparently the extended eyepieces don't respond well to impact. The suggestion may be useful for any binocular with similar eyecups.

Mike

[Andrew Rowlands]

BTW, a person who sees a lot of Swarovski ELs suggested that the eyecups be in the retracted position when the binocular isn't being used; i.e., not secured by a strap/harness. Apparently the extended eyepieces don't respond well to impact. Because of the apparent similarity in design, the suggestion may be useful for any binocular with similar eyecups.

Mike
A good tip, Mike - more extension = more leverage if it does take a knock.

Worth remembering, I think :t:!

Cheers,

Andy.

[hg1]

Thank you for your kind reply, Leif. I have read/heard that Nikon service in the states is good, but I am not sure about Zeiss and Leica. It is also reassuring to know that Swarovski's service is fine. My opinion is, when you are buying an expensive item that has the potential for rough treatment during normal use or by accident, its parent company's service policy and warrantee coverage is important. I don't intend to abuse my binoculars, and I'm fairly sure that birders who damage theirs usually don't intend abuse, either. Still, it's comforting to know one will receive quick and reliable support from the parent company in the event of an accident. As for Zeiss' fragility, you have my apologies: I meant no disrespect. I was asking if I was drawing a wrong conclusion from the experiences of one or two other Zeiss owners. Obviously, I had: I stand thoroughly corrected. Again, thank you for reply.


I have been using the FL 8x42s since February. I have used them in India in some pretty rough terrain, South America in very wet rain forest and all around the US. While I do not TRY to stress my bins, these ones have had some pretty typical hard use. The result - no complaints whatsoever. I cannot see how people might be forming an opinion of fragility for these glasses. I also have Leicas and the FLs are not any more or less fragile (in my opinion).

[Mike Penfold]

Thanks.

See the experience in post #19 for the reason why I'm looking for other current information on the durability of Zeiss 42 FLs.

Mike

[mak]

Thanks.

See the experience in post #19 for the reason why I'm looking for other current information on the durability of Zeiss 42 FLs.
Mike

Overall, the polyamide body is no less resilient than magnesium, aluminium, etc etc. In fact it has more resilience than the others, as for testing, well I think you'll find, that this was carried out when deciding on which body to use.

[Mike Penfold]

Mak, where did you find the information on testing the Zeiss 42 FLs for durability?

Is it the material used in the construction of a binocular, or the manner in which the lenses are secured in the barrels that determines the capability of a binocular to remain in alignment after the kinds of impacts that seem to occur in the normal course of birding? Information from testing would probably address both issues, and the experience of users of the 42 FLs is significant. Zeiss (or any other manufacturer of binoculars) is unlikely to disclose what percentage of 42 FLs have been repaired, in or out of warranty.

Mike

[mak]

Mike.
Educated guess.
mak

[Leif]

Mak, where did you find the information on testing the Zeiss 42 FLs for durability?

Is it the material used in the construction of a binocular, or the manner in which the lenses are secured in the barrels that determines the capability of a binocular to remain in alignment after the kinds of impacts that seem to occur in the normal course of birding? Information from testing would probably address both issues, and the experience of users of the 42 FLs is significant. Zeiss (or any other manufacturer of binoculars) is unlikely to disclose what percentage of 42 FLs have been repaired, in or out of warranty.

Mike

Mike: These days most pro-grade camera lenses are partially made from polycarbonate and other polymers (or plastics if you prefer). When the transition was first made, owners were doubtful of the longevity of the new materials, but they have turned out to be durable.

If you look at an 8x42 FL you will see that the lens cells are metal. I presume the prism housings are metal too. The body, the eye tubes and other bits are composite. Now I happen to prefer metal for aesthetic reasons - I happen to like the look of nicely machined metal, such as anodised aluminium - but composites and plastic are in some respects more robust, for example they are more shock resistant and less susceptible to temperature variation (except for extremes of heat).

You might be able to get some feedback on the robustness of various products from optics retailers and repairers, as they are most likely to hear if there are any problems. The only problem is that they might wish to push certain brands, so it's worth asking several.

When the Swarovski EL first appeared there was concern about the robustness of the focus mechanism, but as far as I know it is fine.

If you really are worried, then buy an old model that has been proved in the field.

Leif

[Curtis Croulet]

I question whether it would be possible to get statistically significant data on binocular durability. You might ask a big repair shop how many they get for service, but the number is directly to related the number of units sold and, perhaps, to the characteristics of the user base. A repair shop might see more of Brand X than Brand Y simply because there are more Brand X bins in the field. And people who buy expensive bins like Leica or Zeiss might be more likely to submit the bins for repair rather than simply discard them, as the user of a $99 bin might.

[Leif]

I question whether it would be possible to get statistically significant data on binocular durability. You might ask a big repair shop how many they get for service, but the number is directly to related the number of units sold and, perhaps, to the characteristics of the user base. A repair shop might see more of Brand X than Brand Y simply because there are more Brand X bins in the field. And people who buy expensive bins like Leica or Zeiss might be more likely to submit the bins for repair rather than simply discard them, as the user of a $99 bin might.

Curtis: Yes, obviously you have to use a bit of common sense, though I still think it's worth asking. After all, we're not talking about a scientific survey, but merely finding out if any particular brand or model stands out as more troublesome, or vica versa. Leif

[hinnark]

Curtis: Yes, obviously you have to use a bit of common sense, though I still think it's worth asking. After all, we're not talking about a scientific survey, but merely finding out if any particular brand or model stands out as more troublesome, or vica versa. Leif

I agree. Perhaps it would be useful to give reports about repairs and experiences with customer support their own rubric here in Birdforum (Photography, Digiscoping, Art & Equipment)? Maybe a nice collection would come together in the course of time. I at least would read such reports with the same interest as any reviews about equipment.

Steve

[scampo]

Curtis: Yes, obviously you have to use a bit of common sense, though I still think it's worth asking. After all, we're not talking about a scientific survey, but merely finding out if any particular brand or model stands out as more troublesome, or vica versa. LeifI'm not convinced that common sense is always prevalent in some of these comments. Zeiss FLs are surely as tough or tougher than any top make.

[Pileatus]

I'm not convinced that common sense is always prevalent in some of these comments. Zeiss FLs are surely as tough or tougher than any top make.


When I first picked up an FL I thought "This must be extremely impact resistant". Composites are amazing and we're sure to see more manufacturers adopting the technology.

John

[Mike Penfold]

Goodness gracious Scampo -- I'd hate to be around if Zeiss dawdled with the repair of your binocular/scope.

Zeiss invalidates the warranty for any of their optics repaired by non-Zeiss staff.

Another local birder just purchased 10x42 Swarovski ELs and an STS 80 HD, after direct comparisons for performance and service at the largest optics retailer in Ontario. Another Ontario retailer will not carry Zeiss products, because of the significant difference in price between Canada and the US, and poor service.

I'm still looking for birders whose 42 FLs have been dropped/fallen.

Modern plastics are fine; that's not the issue.

Hinnark's suggestion is a good one.

Mike

[Fastlane]

Greetings, I'm a longtime bird lover and appreciate good optics. I've never owned a pair of Zeiss binoculars, but do have a story about their durability.
In the mid 80's, I was shopping for a rifle and scope. The owner of a sporting goods store who sold Zeiss was telling us how well built Zeiss products are. He was showing us a pair of 10x40 binoculars that look like the current ClassiC series. He said, "Try this with any other binoculars." and he proceeded to forcefully throw them on the floor of the shop. He picked them up and showed them to us afterwards. They still worked perfectly. The optical quality was the best I had ever seen and if I could have afforded them, I would have bought a pair (in the box, not the demo :) ).

Maybe some of the other good binoculars out these days, including the FL, would withstand that extraordinary punishment, but I have seen lesser quality binoculars destroyed when just dropped a couple of feet. I'm in the market for some good binoculars and appreciate the wit and wisdom of the posters on this forum.

[Mike Penfold]

I received an email response after the post above from the relatively well-known birder who dropped his 42 FLs a short distance on to soft ground, knocking them out of alignment. He was pleasantly surprised to get them back from Zeiss after about three months, without any charge.

Mike

[hinnark]

I'm still looking for birders whose 42 FLs have been dropped/fallen.


Mike


Mike,

no drop is like the other. It really depends on what´s happend in detail or in other words: it´s a matter of luck. If the bin drops with only one barrel to the ground it´s another case than with both and so on. In general of course weight matters as well as the angle and side the bin drops on the ground. The ground itself matters also. So I doubt if you can do any conclusions by reports about fallen FLs. I expect that Zeiss make their products shock resistant as any other manufactorer.
Composite material has its own advantages. It´s for example not under the influence of temperature like metal. That said I´m not sure about some other questions. AFAIK composite material always need some adhesives. Will these kind of stuff last for long periods of time as metals do? Are the FLs as easy to maintain as bins made of metal?
Anyway, experiences about the work of customer services are always informative and worthwhile to share in the internet. AFAIK no one made a collection of these stuff about binoculars so far so it´s up to Birdforum to to jump at the chance to be the first. :)

Steve

P.S. Jan Meijerink gives some informations (unfortunately only in Dutch) about problems that occured with high-class binoculars: www.tvwg.nl - Testrapporten -> Kijkers -> Problemen Topklasse-kijkers

[scampo]

Goodness gracious Scampo -- I'd hate to be around if Zeiss dawdled with the repair of your binocular/scope.

...

Modern plastics are fine; that's not the issue.

Hinnark's suggestion is a good one.

MikeI should have read the whole of the thread more carefully, Mike, perhaps, eh? But I know that Zeiss have one of the most tested binoculars in the world with the new FLs and the suggestion that they have chosen an inferior material struck me as rather less than likely. That said... I like metal and have a natural distrust of plastics... But Zeiss have a history that is as long as it gets and a reputation that is unsurpassed.

[mcdowella]

I've heard a lot here about resistance to being dropped, but I just thought I'd say that my worry over Zeiss is the one initially mentioned in this thread, which is the loosening of the focus controls under normal wear and tear, especially - has has been pointed out - as this problem all seems to have occurred in the older Zeiss Victory (see e.g. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=20252). I am somewhat surprised that they didn't react to this by beefing up this part of the FL.

[sean davis]

Well I still do not have mine back yet. Maybe another week or two.

I also have 8x42FL and the focus wheel is too loose and pops out. When I get the 8x32 back I will send these in which will then go to Germany and another few months wait. If I bought grey market then at least I could of sent them direct to Germany myself and this might have sped things up a little.

SO I suppose its a good thing that I bought two pair.

I seriously reget getting Zeiss. Two brand new pair of bins, hardly used, serious problems and LOUSY LOUSY LOUSY service.

I will be looking for a new pair (not Zeiss) becuase I cant live with only one pair between more than one person. ALOT of money down the drain.

Sean

[Sailcat]

I wish Sean the very best. I hope the issues concerning the focusers on his binoculars are resolved by the Zeiss service department. I, however, will look at other brands when choosing a pair of premium glasses. It is not a reflection upon the quality of Zeiss products, but on their service and warrantee policies. It may be different in the states, but I don't want to take chances.

[Mike Penfold]

Up to at least May, 2005, Zeiss binoculars/scopes purchased from authorized dealers in North America, and needing service were shipped to their offices in Virginia, then to Germany, where estimates and repairs were completed. The warranty strictly covered manufacturing defects only.

Is Zeiss making some positive changes? As mentioned in post #45, although it took Zeiss about 3 months to complete the repair of a dropped binocular, it was completed without charge.

Has Zeiss remedied the focus wheel issue in current production of 42 FLs? If they have, what serial number does the new production start with in each magnification?

Mike
.

[scampo]

Well I still do not have mine back yet. Maybe another week or two.

I also have 8x42FL and the focus wheel is too loose and pops out. When I get the 8x32 back I will send these in which will then go to Germany and another few months wait. If I bought grey market then at least I could of sent them direct to Germany myself and this might have sped things up a little.

SO I suppose its a good thing that I bought two pair.

I seriously reget getting Zeiss. Two brand new pair of bins, hardly used, serious problems and LOUSY LOUSY LOUSY service.

I will be looking for a new pair (not Zeiss) becuase I cant live with only one pair between more than one person. ALOT of money down the drain.

SeanI can understand your frustration but, well... I have had the most excellent service from Zeiss UK. If I was pushed to make any complaint about optical companies, I could say that Nikon kept me waiting on a repair for months... that the badge fell off my Swaro within a month of buying them... that three Opticron scopes had internal marks on the lenses. But I would never use a public forum such as this to call either Nikon, Swarovski or Opticron "lousy" - they absolutely are not that; and neither are Zeiss.

[Mike Penfold]

Scampo, I thought Nikon was short a part for that repair?

A recent example of your service from Zeiss would be helpful.

Wouldn't it be great if Zeiss were responding well to desirable changes in their product, just as Leica did with its zoom eyepiece, and Swarovski with the EL's focus ratio.

Mike

[scampo]

Scampo, I thought Nikon was short a part for that repair?

A recent example of your service from Zeiss would be helpful.

Wouldn't it be great if Zeiss were responding well to desirable changes in their product, just as Leica did with its zoom eyepiece, and Swarovski with the ELs focus ratio.

Mike
Nikon had no replacement lens hoods in the UK to fix my dented ED82 scope and it took them a couple of months to get the scope back to me. Luckily, I was able to use my son's scope during the delay. Zeiss? I have had a tiny blob of grease(?) appear on the internal optics of the zoom eyepiece and Zeiss UK sent me a replacement to use while the original was being repaired leaving me with a fully useable scope at all times. I cannot fault Zeiss but can understand the frustration of any delay when you have spent so much.

[Robert Ellis]

As a side story, but one that relates, a prominent Zeiss dealer in the Twin Cities stopped carrying the Victory compacts because far too many were coming back with problems related to the polymer housing. More recently they had a sole FL 10x42 in stock but were not too keen on it either, the only reason I could get out of them was that they were not impressed by Zeiss' effort aside from the exotic glass.

[scampo]

I wonder... having been in business, I often think profit margins lurk there unspoken.

[Mike Penfold]

I wonder... having been in business, I often think profit margins lurk there unspoken.


The implication that an optics dealer is lying is at least as pejorative as describing one manufacturer's service as "lousy".

If there are significant differences in dealer profit margins and incentives among Kowa, Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss, the information would be useful for consumers of optics products.

Mike

[Curtis Croulet]

As a side story, but one that relates, a prominent Zeiss dealer in the Twin Cities stopped carrying the Victory compacts because far too many were coming back with problems related to the polymer housing.

It would be interesting to hear more about this. I've had no trouble with my 8x42 FL, and I don't recall that anybody else in this forum who owns them has reported a problem with the housing.

[hg1]

It would be interesting to hear more about this. I've had no trouble with my 8x42 FL, and I don't recall that anybody else in this forum who owns them has reported a problem with the housing.

I agree with Curtis. I have put my 8x42 FLs thru some pretty tough treatment over the last 8 months and have had no problems whatsoever. Based on my experiences, I am afraid that I am skeptical about all the agony on this site about "frailty of FLs". The talk about the "focusing barrel problem" leaves me mystified.

I have also had the opportunity to extensively compare the FLs with some of their main competitors in the field under "real-life birding conditions". I am glad that I chose FLs and not Ultravids or Swaro ELs, although I have owned both in my time. I could not tolerate the soft muddy edges to the Ultravid field of view (pointed out also in a fairly recent Alula review). IMO, the Swaros are better than the Ultravids but they suffer from (compared with the FLs) a fairly dim image and, in the ones that I tried, too much play in the focusing barrel. I don't mean to denigrate these fine bins, its just that I consider them somewhat passe now that the FLs are out.

[Robert Ellis]

My only direct information was in regards to the Victory Compacts, not the FLs. I heard this from a very respected dealer and I have no reason to doubt him.

Durability aside, my gripe with the 42mm FLs is the huge size. I understand the length is due to the AK prism design, but portability is just as much a concern to me as brightness, which is good enough for me in a traditional SP roof prismed 32mm units.

I am also saddened that the focus of the innovation in the DL is on the lens material. I do believe the initial design project was centerd around the use of AK prisms. The increased light transmission increased the chromatic abberations as well, and so out goes the Victory II and in comes the FL using the same solution to CA that their scopes use. Thus a design correction becomes a selling point.

[Mike Penfold]

I'd be happy to give you (hg1) the email/phone number of the birder whose FLs were knocked out of alignment after a short drop on to soft ground. Virtual agony is better than real.

Have yours been dropped/fallen?

When a focus wheel (or your term, focusing barrel) drops off a binocular, is that a conclusive referent for a problem? You'll excuse me if I don't plunk down serious money on a binocular with build problems that can't be identified before it's purchased -- and it's going to be tied up for months if it needs service.

Is the issue one of design, quality control, or workforce training? Where are the 42 FLs being made? Anybody been to the plant?
Mike

[mak]

When a focus wheel (or your term, focusing barrel) drops off a binocular, is that a conclusive referent for a problem? You'll excuse me if I don't plunk down serious money on a binocular with build problems that can't be identified before it's purchased -- and it's going to be tied up for months if it needs service.

Is the issue one of design, quality control, or workforce training? Where are the 42 FLs being made? Anybody been to the plant?
Mike

Mike.

Visited the factory in Germany......Yes many times. Have you visited the factory?

The FL's are manufactured in Germany (factory in Wetzlar).

Why do I get the feeling you do not like Zeiss.

[Mike Penfold]

Mak, take a look at posts #19, #21, and #26.

My wife and I use a Zeiss 85 T* FL: constant eye relief, constant focus, huge field of view, bright and sharp at 60x, coarse and fine focus wheels. It's a great scope. Gentec (the Canadian distributor) knocked down an out-of warranty repair to $200. (CAD) from $400. because it took 5 months to replace a damaged sun shade. As I've said in an earlier post, Zeiss may be making positive changes in the application of its warranty and time for repairs.

A well-placed rumor in Ontario is that the 42 FLs are being made in Czechoslovakia; I'll pass your information along.

I use an old-style 8x42 Bausch and Lomb Elite (in its next-to-last form); while the view is good, the focus-hunting and fold-down eyecups are tolerable but irritating. (The eyecup on one side doesn't like to stay at the same height.)

Everything else being equal, I'm looking for binoculars with good eye relief, and focus snap, and I'm not in a hurry. While the strengths of 8x are evident, 10x keeps calling me, and at the end of the day, carrying 7 or 8 ounces less shouts a lot. The shortlist includes: 10x42 Zeiss FLs, 10x42 Nikon HGLs, and 8x32 Swarovski ELs. I'm just trying to get hold of demos of the Nikons and Swarovskis for a few days. Gentec is not going to want to talk to me anytime soon. If it's possible to get a current handle on 42FLs and Zeiss service (which is what these posts are about), I'll go down to Pelee Wings in Leamington to have another look.

Mike


.

[Leif]

My only direct information was in regards to the Victory Compacts, not the FLs. I heard this from a very respected dealer and I have no reason to doubt him.

Durability aside, my gripe with the 42mm FLs is the huge size. I understand the length is due to the AK prism design, but portability is just as much a concern to me as brightness, which is good enough for me in a traditional SP roof prismed 32mm units.

I am also saddened that the focus of the innovation in the DL is on the lens material. I do believe the initial design project was centerd around the use of AK prisms. The increased light transmission increased the chromatic abberations as well, and so out goes the Victory II and in comes the FL using the same solution to CA that their scopes use. Thus a design correction becomes a selling point.


Increased light transmission is nothing to do with CA and vica versa.

I think that Zeiss have used AK prisms for years.

I find that most roof prisms binoculars have too much CA for my tastes, whereas the FL is roughly on a par with the Nikon 8x32 SE but with less CA on axis. I can't comment on the original Victory due to insufficient experience with them.

Leif

[Leif]

The implication that an optics dealer is lying is at least as pejorative as describing one manufacturer's service as "lousy".

If there are significant differences in dealer profit margins and incentives among Kowa, Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss, the information would be useful for consumers of optics products.

Mike

At the risk of stating the obvious, to consider dealers as a source of honest information is perhaps naive. I have found most dealers honest and helpful, but it pays to remain sceptical. What are their margins? What brands don't they stock? What are there personal prejudices (they are human too)?

For example, when I was looking for a scope one dealer who did not stock Leica told me that the Televid APO 77 was outdated, and optically much inferior to more recent scopes. If that wasn't a lie, what is?

I do question the reliability of those comments on the compact Zeiss. I have the Classic 8x20 and despite being made from 'every so delicate plastic' it is in fact a tough little beasty.

Some years ago I heard negative comments from a dealer about the rubber armour on the original Victory (smell and discolouration) and they matched similar comments on BF, so dealers can provide useful feedback.

Leif

[Robert Ellis]

The dealer I speak of is National Camera, quite a good dealer as well, and specifically it was Kevin to whom I spoke on the matter. He said too many of the Victory Compacts were coming back for problems with the housing. He did not blame it on being plastic, he just said there were problems, enough of them for him to stop stocking them. It is possible the material is not the problem, but the design, or some other problem, but neither he in the store nor I in the thread blamed it in the material itself, just how it was used.

[Mike Penfold]

Leif, I hope you don't mind me asking what the dealer margins and incentives are among the top brands. I'd always assumed that sports optics marketing folks were watching this like hawks and would be croaking if other brands were giving retailers a significantly better deal. If there's a range of anything like 10% on margins/incentives combined, then that totally reframes the dealer experience.

Perhaps Ontario birders are lucky with Pelee Wings in Leamington, which stocks pretty much everything.

Mike

[scampo]

The implication that an optics dealer is lying is at least as pejorative as describing one manufacturer's service as "lousy".

If there are significant differences in dealer profit margins and incentives among Kowa, Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss, the information would be useful for consumers of optics products.

MikeOh, Mike. "Wonder" and "implication" are very different indeed from opinion stated as if it were fact - and I'm sure that elsewhere but in this thread you would agree. Calling a company as world renowned and prestigious as Zeiss "lousy" in a forum such as this is difficult to accept.

Your second point is equally a surprise. Profit margins are and always will be between those who are party to the sales contract involved - this is a capitalist society, after all.

[mak]

Mak, take a look at posts #19, #21, and #26.

A well-placed rumor in Ontario is that the 42 FLs are being made in Czechoslovakia; I'll pass your information along.

Mike
.

Mike.

With all due respect to your dealer, I have a little more knowledge on this than them.

mak

[Leif]

Leif, I hope you don't mind me asking what the dealer margins and incentives are among the top brands. I'd always assumed that sports optics marketing folks were watching this like hawks and would be croaking if other brands were giving retailers a significantly better deal. If there's a range of anything like 10% on margins/incentives combined, then that totally reframes the dealer experience.

Perhaps Ontario birders are lucky with Pelee Wings in Leamington, which stocks pretty much everything.

Mike

Some years back a UK dealer stopped stocking Leica. I beleive they had lots of stock, and Leica changed the pricing, leaving them to make a loss. So margins are not huge. I've heard comments from the trade that margins might be as low as 15% on premium instruments, which is consistent with the Leica story. Other than that, I don't know what dealers make.

It might be the case that dealers get 'perks' if they sell lots of a given brand. But I've never heard this mentioned, so it's no more than a guess. Clearly some dealers such as Warehouse Express can buy in bulk and often can get remarkable deals.

Anyway, you just have to look at UK and US pricing to see that things are not straight forward. In the UK Nikon HG are expensive. In the US they are much cheaper. Why? Maybe the Nikon brand is more respected in the UK.

And looking at cameras, in the UK Nikon lenses cost quite a bit more than Canon lenses, despite being roughly equivalent.

So what's the explanation? Maybe one manufacturer is able to make items more cheaply than another. Or maybe one company can't make enough to satisfy demand, so they can increase the price. But they don't care about dealer margins. So they sell well, but the dealer doesn't like them.

Leif

[Leif]

The dealer I speak of is National Camera, quite a good dealer as well, and specifically it was Kevin to whom I spoke on the matter. He said too many of the Victory Compacts were coming back for problems with the housing. He did not blame it on being plastic, he just said there were problems, enough of them for him to stop stocking them. It is possible the material is not the problem, but the design, or some other problem, but neither he in the store nor I in the thread blamed it in the material itself, just how it was used.

The dealer I spoke to about Leica was also working for a respected company. I'll not mention the name because the other staff are very helpful and on the level.

I would not dismiss your report, but personally I would not believe it unless I heard the same thing from another dealer or alternative reliable source. I am suspicious mainly because no similar reports have appeared on BF. Bear in mind that people here are not shy about whinging (including me). We've had some dicky Zeiss diopters, some dicky Leica focus wheels, some leaky Swarovski EL's, and a few issues with Nikon.

Incidentally I heard some reports from a dealer about issues with Leica, but since I did not hear anyone else say the same thing, I dismissed them. I did hear the same rumour in another shop, but from a customer who had been to the one where I heard it too.

Leif

[Curtis Croulet]

For example, when I was looking for a scope one dealer who did not stock Leica told me that the Televid APO 77 was outdated, and optically much inferior to more recent scopes. If that wasn't a lie, what is?

A couple of years ago I was visiting a major, nationally-known dealer of astronomical and photo equipment (though the astronomy is far more a focus of their sales now than photography). Their shop is about 30 miles from me. They are running multiple ads in the two major US astronomy magazines. A woman came in and asked about some binoculars she'd seen elsewhere. "I think they were called Shawarski or something." "Oh, we used to carry them, but we had a lot of trouble with them, so we stopped." I've never seen Swarovski (or "Shawarski") products of any kind in this store.

[Mike Penfold]

Mak, point taken about the parts for the 42 FLs being made and assembled in Wetzlar, Germany. Is there a Zeiss working group trouble-shooting the lens and focus wheel issues?

Some retail staff have more background in sport optics than others. In Owen Sound, Mike (not me) at Foto-Art has assembled a fine small range of $200.- $500. (CAD) binoculars. You could go in with the Cornell evaluation table (not a bad place to start), and walk out with a decent pair of binoculars.

That being said, perhaps it's impossible to untangle the financial relationships between sports optics dealers and distributors. Wouldn't it be nice to know this. I guess we're left with balancing prices off the web and service from a dealer where you can compare, and choose cherries.

Mike

[mak]

Mak, point taken about the parts for the 42 FLs being made and assembled in Wetzlar, Germany. Is there a Zeiss working group trouble-shooting the lens and focus wheel issues?

Some retail staff have more background in sport optics than others. In Owen Sound, Mike (not me) at Foto-Art has assembled a fine small range of $200.- $500. (CAD) binoculars. You could go in with the Cornell evaluation table (not a bad place to start), and walk out with a decent pair of binoculars.

That being said, perhaps it's impossible to untangle the financial relationships between sports optics dealers and distributors. Wouldn't it be nice to know this. I guess we're left with balancing prices off the web and service from a dealer where you can compare, and choose cherries.
Mike


Mike.

Through this forum, there have been opinions raised against a number of different products from various manufacturers (Leica, Swarovski, Nikon, Zeiss). Broken this, broken that, this does not work, poor this, poor that, poor workmanship....so on & so on.

IMO, many of the speculative statements have been incorrect, yes individuals have had problems with x on x or y on y etc etc, but to suggest that the entire product is poor or lousy is wrong.

Opinions yes, but does that mean that all the products are of bad quality...... I think not.

Maybe there is another reason for the negative posts!

[Curtis Croulet]

Mak, point taken about the parts for the 42 FLs being made and assembled in Wetzlar, Germany. Is there a Zeiss working group trouble-shooting the lens and focus wheel issues?

What lens issues?

[Mike Penfold]

Another birder dropped his 42Fls a short distance on to soft ground, knocking one or more lens out of alignment. His binoculars were repaired by Zeiss in about 3 months, at no charge.

Mak, if you've actually read the posts, you know that I haven't said that all samples of Zeiss products have a problem.

BTW, our Zeiss 85 T* FL was returned after 5 months with a 1/4" wide gob of adhesive smeared completely around the rear joint of the 2 body housings. Is this an isolated event, or is it representative of Zeiss service? IMO, it's still a great scope, and I'm still not going to buy a 42 FL when there are concerns about its construction, Zeiss service takes months, and strictly covers manufacturing defects only.

If you don't have the attention span for details about optics, don't read it.

Mike

[Grousemore]

Another birder dropped his 42Fls a short distance on to soft ground, knocking one or more lens out of alignment. His binoculars were repaired by Zeiss in about 3 months, at no charge.

Mak, if you've actually read the posts, you know that I haven't said that all samples of Zeiss products have a problem.

BTW, our Zeiss 85 T* FL was returned after 5 months with a 1/4" wide gob of adhesive smeared completely around the rear joint of the 2 body housings. Is this an isolated event, or is it representative of Zeiss service? IMO, it's still a great scope, and I'm still not going to buy a 42 FL when there are concerns about its construction, Zeiss service takes months, and strictly covers manufacturing defects only.

If you don't have the attention span for details about optics, don't read it.

Mike


Whatever your motive for plugging this anti-Zeiss stuff, why not just purchase a different brand?

[Curtis Croulet]

My FLs have tumbled a couple of times from a car seat onto hard pavement without damage.

[Mike Penfold]

Thanks Curtis, that's exactly the kind of factual information I was looking for.

Mike

[scampo]

What lens issues?What folly...?

[mak]

If you don't have the attention span for details about optics, don't read it.
Mike

Mike.

The point is that on this forum posts have been made, not only on Zeiss, but Swarovski, Nikon & Leica.

Problem this, problem that, poor this poor that.

It does not mean that a particular manufacturers product is sub standard or defective.

BTW. I do read it and because I have some understanding of the manufacturing process, then I can identify fair comment against poor.

[Rico]

More factual information: my Victory 8x20 Compact is labelled "Made by Carl Zeiss in Hungary" and the Victory 7x42 FL, "Made in Germany".

[mrmarklin]

On October 1, 2005 I was the proud purchaser of Zeiss' newest binocular, the 8x42FL. I'd heard they were good, but I already owned Zeiss Victory 8x40s. How much better would they be, if any?
In Idaho Falls, Idaho there is a Sportsman's Warehouse store. It had all the big 3 bins on hand for comparison: Leica Ultravids, Swaro ELs, and of course Zeiss. I also brought my own Victories for comparison. Inside the store, high on a wall was a Zeiss vision chart, invisible to the naked eye, one could compare the resolution and ergonomics of all the various bins. By a nose, the FL was the sharpest. Second place was the Swaro (very close, YMMV) and tied for third were the Ultravids, and my old Victories. What I like most about the FL was the ergonomics. The Leica and the Swaro have "thumb guides" that didn't quite feel right with me. Again, YMMV. But the test was not done. I went back later that evening, just as it was about to get dark, to check for viewing characteristics in fading light, and also check for contrast outside the store. Idaho Falls is semi-rural, so there were actually some barns and hills to look at! It was a very close contest, but the Zeiss held its own and "won" again. This test was the most meaningful for me because most hunted big game is seen at these hours, and contrast is very important.

In the field over the next several days, the FL did not let me down. Yes, the new bin was dropped a couple of times, dragged inadvertently once, and laid on the ground numerous times. Contrast was excellent, nothing broke, and I cleaned the lenses several times for dust.

Two days later I was in the field late afternoon the sky was clear, but it was very cold. Just super contrast! One needs as much light gathering as one can get.

All in all I'm very satisfied with the purchase. Some of the problems alluded to above just never occurred to me, and the bin was used very hard for a week.

BTW after retuning home to California, I noticed that an independent magazine called Gun Tests awarded the FLs their highest accolade, beating out Swaro and Leica among others. This magazine accepts no advertising.

BTW, I also tested some high end Bruntons that the store recommended to me. Don't go there.

[xenophobe]

Inside the store, high on a wall was a Zeiss vision chart, invisible to the naked eye, one could compare the resolution and ergonomics of all the various bins.


Sorry, indoor resolution test charts mean very little to overall performance of a binocular in the field, and the qualities of the top binoculars really need to be tested side by side, outdoors, for extended periods in various lighting conditions. Just looking at a chart in a store will tell you exactly how those binoculars will perform, in a store, looking at a chart, IMO. If you're going to be looking at a lot of indoor charts, then this is really meaningful. lol

I may be nearly alone in this thought here, but I think perceived resolution tests are extremely useful, though many here will say that all of the top binoculars have a higher resolution than you could ever differenciate with your unaided eyes. But, using an indoor test to decide which is best isn't much different than going to a dealership and just sitting in a car to see how it handles.



BTW after retuning home to California, I noticed that an independent magazine called Gun Tests awarded the FLs their highest accolade, beating out Swaro and Leica among others. This magazine accepts no advertising.


That 'test' was a joke and a disgrace to their otherwise fine magazine. Do a search here, or look at SWFA's forums where their review is posted, their 'review' is easily torn apart.

[Swissboy]

That 'test' was a joke and a disgrace to their otherwise fine magazine. Do a search here, or look at SWFA's forums where their review is posted, their 'review' is easily torn apart.

Can you give a link please, I had no success finding what you are referring to. Thanks.

[xenophobe]

You need to be logged in over there or you can't see it. The gun test can be found here:

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?fid=22

A couple of comments on the test here:
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2101&PN=2

A good thread here about the Cornell binocular 'review':
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=40290


There are others... just use the search function.

[solentbirder]

.... the qualities of the top binoculars really need to be tested side by side, outdoors, for extended periods in various lighting conditions....


Good point.
I think one of the great benefits of this forum is being able to hear from people who've used various models for long periods in the field. I've personally found other members very helpful and willing to provide objective feedback on long-term ownership and usage of different binoculars.
Happy viewing whatever you use !

[mrmarklin]

Xenophobe, I agree that indoor tests are not definitive. I also went outside to test same bins. Didn't you read the whole review?

I'll admit that Gun Tests review was subjective, but aren't they all? So was my review!

I certainly hope you're not stuck using the Bruntons 3:-) .

[xenophobe]

Yeah, I read your whole report... I had it in my thought to make note of those charts being useless without a tripod, but somehow that got left out. lol

The Gun Test article was not only subjective, but made recommendations based on incorrect facts. Any number of people here are far more qualified to review binoculars than the Gun Test crew, which did little more than spot a few objects at the range, then looked at incorrect data sheets to finish off their opinions. They didn't even double check their facts. lol

The SLCold 10x42 is nearly a quarter pound (105g+) heavier than the Ultravid which is under .2 oz heavier than the Victory FLs, yet it was 'one of the heaviest test binoculars' who's weight was a factor when carrying them... lol. Even more absurd is putting a SLC old in a test group with an Ultravid and a FL. It only makes you wonder what they would have said if they decided to change to a EL and a Trinovid BN.

Anyways, this is beating a dead horse to the extreme. Enjoy your view!

[Swissboy]

You need to be logged in over there or you can't see it. The gun test can be found here:

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?fid=22

A couple of comments on the test here:
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2101&PN=2

A good thread here about the Cornell binocular 'review':
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=40290


There are others... just use the search function.

Thanks, Xenophobe, for the links.
Somehow I had only searched in the binoculars section of opticstalk. And there, I must have missed the posts criticizing the Gun-Test results. I used to participate frequently in the predecessor of the present SWFA forum, and Chris always sounded like a very reliable guy. However, I think his reputation might get tarnished if he keeps posting such tests without any note of caution. Instead, his first post now does just the opposite.

I had been familiar with the controversy about the Cornell "tests".