Classics & CA

[Hogjaws]

Just a question or two,

How much CA in (say in comparison to Swarovski SLC or EL) does the Classic have? Generally, isn't the amount of CA fairly low in the Classic? Did the Victory II's have more CA than the Classics?

Thanks,

Hogjaws

[Leif]

Just a question or two,

How much CA in (say in comparison to Swarovski SLC or EL) does the Classic have? Generally, isn't the amount of CA fairly low in the Classic? Did the Victory II's have more CA than the Classics?

Thanks,

Hogjaws

BY Classic I presume you mean the following Zeiss bins: 8x30 BGAT, 7x42 BGAT and 10x40 BGAT? The 8x30 BGAT has very little CA. I rather like the image, though contrast is not as high as the best, and eye relief is less than ideal. It's a nice little bin. I am told that the 7x42 has very little CA, and the optics are highly regarded. I don't have enough experience with it to comment much except to agree with the low CA and excellent optics. I haven't used the 10x40.

For a review of the Victory (2?), see the Alula site. Most people seem to agree that he weakness of the Victory 2, despite excellent optics, was excessive CA, though not all users are bothered by it, so it might not be an issue for you.

Leif

[xenophobe]

The 7x42 has no perceivable CA, unless you're hyper-sensitive to it you would probably never notice it. The view is crisp and beautiful, much better than any SLC I've ever tried, and would probably give the EL a good run for their money, the only thing holding this model back compared to the SLC is the length. They're quite a bit longer than the 10x40B. They're also quite heavy. I could not get used to mine so I have them for sale at the shop I work at. They're not discontinued because Zeiss can make a binocular with a better view, only because of the size and weight issue.

The 10x40B does have detectable CA, but not nearly as much as most mid-priced roofs. These were my favorite all-time binocular until I bought an Ultravid to replace it. The edge-to-edge sharpness isn't as consistent as the 10x42 SLC, but the rather large 80-85% sweet spot of the Classic smokes the SLC. The SLC did have slightly better resolution, but the contrast of the Classic seemed more neutral as the SLCs seemed a bit warmer (which I personally didn't prefer). When you compare the models together, the Classic is much more compact, and I prefer the feel much better. Plus at the $799 Cabelas has them for is a bargain. I bought mine from them when they had a sale for $699 and I will never sell them, even though I have a pair of 10x42 Ultravids. They're really that nice, and the Ultravids aren't a thousand dollars worth of better view.

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with the Classics if you can live with their weight and their stiff rubber eyepieces. They're still better than 95% of the binoculars out there, and are still a top end product, IMO.

[Tim Allwood]

can only comment on the 7x42

they have always been the top bins in my eyes - no CA that i can make out and a wonderful depth of field combined with excellent engineering - they are the most rugged and hardwearing of the top bins for me too

wonderful bins, always have been. Don't know why people don't consider them these days

Tim

[xenophobe]

Well, they're not considered because they're discontinued.

I'll agree though, if there is a binocular I would have to pick to be thrown over a cliff and have a bumpy rocky ride to the bottom and expect them to still work, it would be the classics. I'd bet money they'd survive more punishment than any other binocular on the market current or not.

[jcbouget]

To my eyes, and with the binoculars I own, the amount of CA in the 10x40 Classic and the 10x42 FL is nearly identical : it is undetectable on axis, and slightly visible off-axis, but not disturbing. Interestingly, the new Zeiss FLs are known for having very few CA. So, I would tend to conclude that CA is very low in the Classic 10x40 too.

Jean-Charles