10-40 classics 800$ good deal

[robert s]

I was wondering they are selling the 10-40 classics ay Cabelas for 800$ and was wondering what you guys think of the deal. I own a pair of Steiner peraguins 8-42 and love um but aback up pair of binocs would be nice. :bounce:

[Robert Ellis]

I think you would find the Steiners becoming backups to those ClassiCs. There really is no comparison between the two, the 10x40 Zeiss is one of the best binoculars ever made and at $800 are better than just about anything else under $1000.

[xenophobe]

^^^ agreed!

I bought my Ultravid 10x42s to replace my 10x40B. Guess what.... they didn't completely. I still sometimes grab my Zeiss instead and they have become a somewhat frequently used backup pair. On the random day that I do take them, I don't miss my Leicas.

[Otto McDiesel]

^^^ agreed!

I bought my Ultravid 10x42s to replace my 10x40B. Guess what.... they didn't completely. I still sometimes grab my Zeiss instead and they have become a somewhat frequently used backup pair. On the random day that I do take them, I don't miss my Leicas.


True, the difference is not huge.

[jcbouget]

^^^ agreed!

I bought my Ultravid 10x42s to replace my 10x40B. Guess what.... they didn't completely. I still sometimes grab my Zeiss instead and they have become a somewhat frequently used backup pair. On the random day that I do take them, I don't miss my Leicas.
I'm a bit surprised to read that !
Could you explain why the Ultravids didn't completely replace the Classics ?
Personally, since I have the Zeiss FLs, I use them as often as I can. The Classics are stored in another place, so I always have a good pair near me, but I prefer by far the FLs. Optically, the Classics are very good, but they are handicapped by colour rendition, eye relief, minimum focus distance, and above all outdated ergonomics. I think that manufacturers have made important advances in ergonomics, and that the Classics cannot compete with the recent FLs, ELs, Ultravids, or HGLs.

Jean-Charles

[xenophobe]

I'm a bit surprised to read that !
Could you explain why the Ultravids didn't completely replace the Classics ?

Wow... this is a tough question.

Optically there really isn't much difference, the Ultravids only offer a bit more resolution. Contrast is comparable, with the edge going to the Ultravids for more dynamic color, while the Classic is just a tad flatter, but still rather vivid compared to most other binoculars I've tried. CA is not an issue for me with either binocular, the Zeiss shows very slight fringing in the sweet spot, and the Ultravid shows practially none (which may be partially responsible for the Ultravid's higher long range resolution and slightly better sharpness). Edge CA is maybe more noticable in the Ultravids for some odd reason, (possibly because of less CA in the sweet spot) and something one doesn't normally do is view off-axis, so this isn't an issue. Side by side, they're both absolutely stunning to view through, with similarly sized sweet spots. Anything I've mentioned in this paragraph is definite nit-pic territory and sounds much worse than observed.

(I've mentioned CA in the sense of normal viewing, not scouting only for objects that will obviously produce greater than normal CA and focusing attention on the effects of such.)

Ergonomics are another thing completely. It is true that the Classics are a bit outdated here. The rubber eyecups are stiff and thin, and some people may not like them one bit. I couldn't stand the 7x42 because of this, but I don't have this problem with my 10x40's. Go figure. Weight? Not a problem. Sure the Ultravids are lighter by what... 17 grams. Size? They're both comparable. Both suit my ideal size. The Leicas have more girth which aides me in stabilizing. Handling? They both handle exceptionally well. Both balance well, swing well, and feel good in my hands, even though the Zeiss is slightly front heavy compared to the Ultravids.

To address your other points.... Eye relief and close focus aren't issues for me. I don't wear glasses and I generally don't need to focus closer than the 10x40 Classics will let me.

The more I compare the two, the less I am convinced that I really needed the Ultravids at more than twice the price. Are the Ultravids better overall? Yes, If you must have magnesium tubes instead of aluminum, waterproofing, twist out eyecups, larger focuser, closer focus ability, locking diopter, sure the Ultravid does win pretty easily in this regard. If these matter little to you, then these binoculars are more optically on par than their age or price tags may suggest. Both have superior build quality and fantastic optics that any high-end connoisseur should respect.

Until I felt the Ultravid BL, I thought the Zeiss 10x40b was perfection. Maybe it's my high regard for the Classic that keeps them with me. Perhaps my Ultravids are a lemon and my Classics a cherry, but both offer extremely incredible views that have wowed numerous people, and continue to do so. I know I'm amazed every time I look through either of them.

Well, I hope that makes some sense to you. lol

[jcbouget]

Yes it makes sense to me, thank you. :t:
Obviously, I had forgotten for a while that binocular preference is highly subjective.
A part from some drawbacks your have listed, which can be considered as minor by many users, I agree that the Classic remains without any doubt an excellent binocular, especially if the coatings have been improved since I bought my pair, what I believe more and more.

Jean-Charles

[xenophobe]

No problem!

In comparing an older pair of T*P* to 2 newer ones, I'd have to agree. The veiw in the two recent production units were clearly better than one that was nearly 10 years old. Perhaps an advancement in coatings, or higher quality control.

The newer ones from Cabelas are current production, and would probably have the same T* and P* coatings that even the Victories and FLs would have.

The older pair did view quite nice, but wasn't on par with the 10x42 SLCold. The two newer ones were slightly better overall than the SLCs.

[Wehr]

Wow... this is a tough question.

Optically there really isn't much difference, the Ultravids only offer a bit more resolution. Contrast is comparable,

Resolution isn't an issue. How should an Ultravid offer more resolution? It cannot. An Ultravid offers noticeable more contrast - and this is the point.

With the quantitative analysis of optical differences one should be a little more careful. What means "much difference"?

You can drive from coast to coast with both a 1.000$ car and a 100.000$ car. So, would you say there isn't much difference?

Walter Wehr

[xenophobe]

Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.

With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.

With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.

How is this a display of contrast? If that is not a display of visible resolution, what is it then? Sharpness is not an issue, the Zeiss still shows the treelines, text at various colors sizes and distances, shaded underbrush, leaf edge sharpness and contrast at tested distances of approximately 45y, 70y and around 200y. Blah blah blah...

Mind you the yards I mention are only generalized, and I can laze them for the record, as well as show you dozens of reference points I use from my spot at work from where I judge binoculars for sometimes hours a day.

So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol

[henry link]

I have to agree with Walter about this. Both of these binoculars should be able to resolve much finer detail than the eye can see at 10X, even tripod mounted. If you see less detail through the Zeiss there must be something wrong with that particular pair.

[Leif]

Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.

[snip]

So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol

Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.) I've always been suspicious of the idea that because the objective provides more detail than the eye can use, all binoculars of a given magnification must provide the same amount of useable detail. The introduction of phase coatings demonstrates that the amount of useable detail (naked eye, not boosted) depends on the coatings. I'm sure that contrast and optical quality (which are linked) are significant factors.

One point to watch is that you might be able to hold the Ultravid more steady and hence the perceived resolution is higher. Try and use a tripod if you can, or at least rest your elbows on a hard surface while viewing.

Leif

NB: I edited this post to replace 'resolution' with 'useable detail' i.e. the resolution as perceived by the human eye.

[Wehr]

Contrast? As in a observation tower along side a celluar telephone antenna array perched high atop a neighboring mountain with powerlines and the towers that hold them, aproximately 6 miles away.

With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.

With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.

How is this a display of contrast? If that is not a display of visible resolution, what is it then? Sharpness is not an issue, the Zeiss still shows the treelines, text at various colors sizes and distances, shaded underbrush, leaf edge sharpness and contrast at tested distances of approximately 45y, 70y and around 200y. Blah blah blah...

Mind you the yards I mention are only generalized, and I can laze them for the record, as well as show you dozens of reference points I use from my spot at work from where I judge binoculars for sometimes hours a day.

So please explain how this is a matter of pure contrast? I'd really like to hear this. lol


The combined performance of light transmission, contrast and sharpness let you see or let you not see details through binoculars. Nobody is capable to judge their performance in respect of resolution by simply looking through them.
Naturally it is possible to check even the resolution capability, but this makes as much sense as to check the aerodynamics of a VW Beetle at a speed of 500 miles per hour.

Walter

[xenophobe]

I have to agree with Walter about this. Both of these binoculars should be able to resolve much finer detail than the eye can see at 10X, even tripod mounted. If you see less detail through the Zeiss there must be something wrong with that particular pair.

3 different pairs of Zeiss 10x40B Classics both did not show this detail.


Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.) I've always been suspicious of the idea that because the objective provides more detail than the eye can use, all binoculars of a given magnification must provide the same amount of useable detail. The introduction of phase coatings demonstrates that the amount of useable detail (naked eye, not boosted) depends on the coatings. I'm sure that contrast and optical quality (which are linked) are significant factors.

One point to watch is that you might be able to hold the Ultravid more steady and hence the perceived resolution is higher. Try and use a tripod if you can, or at least rest your elbows on a hard surface while viewing.

Leif

NB: I edited this post to replace 'resolution' with 'useable detail' i.e. the resolution as perceived by the human eye.

I agree that usable detail is correct when there is more than enough detail to view, that the eye is overwhelmed with detail when scoping or viewing an object closer. I would disagree with long range viewing in the fact that you're trying to view the smallest area of the binocular image looking for the greatest amount of detail, that at one point you will not be able to resolve images farther than the optics will allow. Certainly this is due to a combination of sharpness, aberrations and contrast, but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations. At least with these two test subjects. Throw in some garbage glass and there might be a valid point in that.

Actually, I use a free standing monopod with a binocular mount when veiwing this object.


Wehr:

Resolution (n) The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image

Is that too adult a puzzle for you? Perhaps you should stop driving your beetle in wind tunnels and start looking through some binoculars? :t:

[Wehr]

3 different pairs of Zeiss 10x40B Classics both did not show this detail.




I agree that usable detail is correct when there is more than enough detail to view, that the eye is overwhelmed with detail when scoping or viewing an object closer. I would disagree with long range viewing in the fact that you're trying to view the smallest area of the binocular image looking for the greatest amount of detail, that at one point you will not be able to resolve images farther than the optics will allow. Certainly this is due to a combination of sharpness, aberrations and contrast, but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations. At least with these two test subjects. Throw in some garbage glass and there might be a valid point in that.

Actually, I use a free standing monopod with a binocular mount when veiwing this object.


Wehr:

Resolution (n) The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image

Is that too adult a puzzle for you? Perhaps you should stop driving your beetle in wind tunnels and start looking through some binoculars? :t:


Blah, blah, blah.
Better you start to be more precise, otherwise further discussions make no sense.
If you would like to have a hamburger, you won't order marshmellows!?

Walter

[xenophobe]

lol.

Professor, instead of repetitively dodging the question, you still haven't explained how long-range observable detail is a primarily a matter of contrast?

I'm asking a genuine question, if you wish to be a snob about it, good for you. Hope it makes you feel better.



With the Ultravids I can clearly see the legs and the staircase leading up to the observation deck of the tower and can make out the outline and internal support members of the powerline towers. There are mulitple antennas in the cellular array, one of which is a two mast pole holding 5 different round dishes. Another antenna is two poles seperated by numerous horizontal beams distinctly visible with the Ultravids.

With the Zeiss, I cannot discern the staircase going around the legs of the obersvation tower, but I can see the tower itself, though the legs and staircase do not have any noticable structure or shape. The two mast pole holding 5 round dishes only appears to be one mast. The vertical antenna with horizontal crossmembers are visible, but the horizontal bars are not distinguishable.

Resolution isn't an issue. How should an Ultravid offer more resolution? It cannot. An Ultravid offers noticeable more contrast - and this is the point.

Please explain how my observations are directly related to contrast... and if not, what am I witnessing here?

Please, entertain yourself and educate me.

[Leif]

but I certainly doubt that contrast is a major factor and isn't as responsible for such issues as aberrations and sharpness and even design limitations.


Not so. It is far from obvious, but contrast is central to a binoculars performance. Optics are often characterised by means of MTF charts. (These do not provide a complete description, but they are not so far off.) In simple terms these plot the contrast across the image plane. There is an excellent and clear description of MTF charts on the Luminous Landscape web site. In general aberrations decrease contrast.


Wehr:

Resolution (n) The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image



I'm with Walter here, and I have to admit that I should have known better than to use the term resolution (subsequently edited). Resolution refers to the resolving ability of the optics (independent of the human eye) and can be measured precisely. One way to do that - advocated by Henry and others - is by placing a 'booster' in front of the eyepiece and examing the image visually. But as Henry rightly points out, we cannot see all of the detail in the image provided by an 8x binocular i.e. we do not have sufficient visual acuity. What you and I mean is how much detail we can see with the binocular. That is not the same thing as the resolution of the binocular. If the image is dim, or flat (low contrast), we will have more difficulty seeing fine detail. If the image is bright, and crisp (high contrast), we will easily see fine detail. In other words, transmission and contrast are important.

I remember having this kind of discussion on numerous occasions on BF, and part of the problem is the lack of a term to represent 'the amount of detail that can be seen through a given binocular'. Stephen Ingraham has his NEED value which is the sort of thing that we need.

Leif

[xenophobe]

Leif, I'm talking about long range observable detail, with the Zeiss Classic, magnifying the image will only magnify the lack of detail that is observable with the Ultravids.

Yes, I DO have a Zeiss tripler, and no, the extra "missing" detail is not observable.

If this were viewed in the daytime or visible at night where contrast plays a much less significant role, the Ultravids would still see what the Zeiss cannot resolve.

*shrug*

[Leif]

Leif, I'm talking about long range observable detail, with the Zeiss Classic, magnifying the image will only magnify the lack of detail that is observable with the Ultravids.

Yes, I DO have a Zeiss tripler, and no, the extra "missing" detail is not observable.

If this were viewed in the daytime or visible at night where contrast plays a much less significant role, the Ultravids would still see what the Zeiss cannot resolve.

*shrug*

So you have also performed your comparison test with the booster/tripler? How much extra detail is revealed by use of the booster? I am intrigued by this. (My problem in discussing this with you, Henry, Walter etc is that I do not own a booster/tripler, and hence I am to some extent relying on second-hand information.)

According to another thread, a typical resolution for a binocular (measured with a booster) is ~7". Now if that is magnified 8 times, looking through the binocular that 7" becomes roughly 56". I seem to recall someone (Henry?) stating that the human eye can typically resolve ~60". So if my back of an envelope figures are correct, they imply that an 8x40 binocular provides about the same amount of detail as the eye can use. Of course some people have greater visual acuity, and hence they will perceive some image softness. I am sure someone will correct my figures if they are wrong. ;)

I am certain that contrast always plays a significant role, though the reason is far from obvious. I recommend that you check out MTF charts. (But don't take them too seriously. There's too many MTF nerds on this planet!) I have seen significant differences in contrast between so-called premium binoculars esp. in the 8x30 and 8x32 class.

Leif

[xenophobe]

Leif, I have tried the booster on the long range target I'm talking about, but I did not seriously compare them side by side with the intent of writing about it in detail. That's something that I'll do next time I'm at work.


Zenophobe: What do you find if you perform a dollar bill test or similar? (Find out how close you have to be to read some text with each binocular.)

At 15' 4'' with the Zeiss, and 17' with the Ultravid I can still read "Treasurer of the United States" and "Secretary of the Treasury" and clearly see the spaces in the "e,a and o"

At 26' 6" (as far as I can test inside at night), I can easily read:

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

With both binoculars, with either objective from either eyes, from the dark into the bill being luminated by a 60w incandescent bulb.

[raven swift]

So what would you suggest guys, buying the Zeiss classics 10x40 B or the
Vortez Stokes DLS ? I have had Zeiss Jena 10x50 for the last 20 years. I
am tired of their bulkiness.
Thank you.

[Otto McDiesel]

So what would you suggest guys, buying the Zeiss classics 10x40 B or the
Vortez Stokes DLS ? I have had Zeiss Jena 10x50 for the last 20 years. I
am tired of their bulkiness.
Thank you.

My vote for Zeiss Classics (when compared to the Vortex).

[Buster]

Cabelas has the 10x40 ClassiC's on sale right for $749.99....

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0028573710005a&type=product&cmCat=search&returnString=hasJS=true&_D%3AhasJS=+&QueryText=zeiss&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.22&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&N=4887&Ntk=Products&Ntx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&Ntt=zeiss&noImage=0&returnPage=search-results1.jsp

[FrankD]

...and some really nice refurbs in their bargain cave for $599 (local retail store). ;)

[xenophobe]

$749 is a great price, and $599? Definitely a steal. Refurb SLC's aren't even that cheap, and the Zeiss 10x40's are definitely in the same quality range.

[Buster]

FrankD, sent you a private message and an email....

[raven swift]

Thanks a lot to all for your messages.

Where do i find their cave/refurb stuff
on the website?

Thanks a lot. Have a nice week-end...

[raven swift]

Just saw that BH also has them for $774...