Jonathan B.
Well-known member
I was able to compare these binoculars side-by-side today. A year ago I described my comparison of Ultravid (both 7x42 and 8x42) and Nikon SE 8x32, which I have owned for more than four years. The Ultravid 7x42 was the first roof-prism binocular I had tried that was brighter than the SE and matched it for resolution, contrast, and color fidelity (I think the 8x42 Ultravid is AS bright as the 8x32 SE, but not brighter). I bought the 7x42 at that time.
Today at the Festival of the Cranes, at Bosque del Apache NWR, I visited the Eagle Optics booth. The staffer working the booth kindly opened a factory-sealed box and lent me a virtually new 7x42 Zeiss FL, knowing that I only wanted to compare it to my Ultravid (which I bought from EO). She even let me leave the tent and take it outside. I am grateful to EO for the assistance and trust.
The FL was unlike some that have been described on this forum. The image was sharp almost to the edge; not quite as close to the edge as in Swarovski EL or Nikon SE, but sharp much closer to the edge than I had anticipated. The image was superbly sharp and contrasty, and color fidelity was exceptional. Brightness in deep shade was excellent.
None of those aspects of performance in the FL surpassed the Ultravid. In fact to my eyes the images in the two are so similar as to be indistinguishable. I was unable to get the FL to exhibit CA, but for that matter I was unable to get the Ultravid to do it while I was comparing them. The Ultravid exhibits very slight CA when viewing a bird against a backlit cloud. Those conditions did not exist at the time, so I could not say how the FL would perform under that difficult circumstance.
Viewing dark objects in shaded areas under the tent, both binoculars were identically bright. Making this comparison I stacked one binocular on top of the other so I could go back and forth between them rapidly. I tried several different subjects and in every case I could not discern a difference.
The Ultravid's field of view is technically 94% of that of the FL. In actual use I could not detect a practical difference. At all viewing distances they seemed to have nearly an identical field of view.
The FL focuses closer, and this might be useful for viewing insects. I have never been in a situation with either my Ultravid or SE in which I could not focus on a bird.
The ergonomics of the two are dramatically different. We all know that handling is a personal matter, so keep in mind that I speak only for myself when I say that the Ultravid wins hands down. I was disappointed by the FL's handling. The focusing wheel is positioned such that I had to grip the binocular with the fleshy part of my palm against the strap lug in order to focus, and at that point the body tapers in so sharply that the hand is flexed inward. The ribbed body does not fit the hand comfortably, while the Ultravid matches the hand solidly. In fact the ribbed part of the body can hardly be gripped at all by the hand that is used to focus. The FL's handling was downright awkward to me. This is all the more surprising because the ergonomics of the Zeiss Victory are very good--in fact they are similar to the Ultravid's.
The focusing wheel of the FL was stiff. My Ultravid's was not stiff when I bought it, but it was rough. With use it has become smooth. I assume the FL's focus will loosen with use, but just as was the case with my Ultravid when it was new, I had to focus the FL using two fingers. The gearing of the FL's focus is slightly higher than the Ultravid's. I prefer the slower focus of the Ultravid, but I could easily adjust to the faster focus in the 7x42 FL.
That is not the case with the 8x42 FL, which was also on display and which I handled. The focus in it was very fast, and because it does not have the depth of focus of the 7x42, I found myself struggling with it. I did not like it and could not grow accustomed to it. Others might find it wonderful.
I believe one or more contributors to the forum have preferred the ergonomics of the FL to the Ultravid's. So let me conclude by saying that if you want an optically superlative binocular, you will get it with either the FL or the Ultravid, but you need to handle them before making a choice.
EO was exhibiting the new, lighter Nikon LX/HG. Wow. This is another binocular with superb ergonomics, but I never liked the weight. Optically it is unchanged, but the difference in weight is dramatic. Except for CA, which in the Nikon exceeds the Ultravid, this is an optically remarkable bin. I had not handled one since the day I bought my SE, and I had forgotten how wonderful it was. If I were shopping for an 8x42, I would consider it alongside the FL and Ultravid.
Today at the Festival of the Cranes, at Bosque del Apache NWR, I visited the Eagle Optics booth. The staffer working the booth kindly opened a factory-sealed box and lent me a virtually new 7x42 Zeiss FL, knowing that I only wanted to compare it to my Ultravid (which I bought from EO). She even let me leave the tent and take it outside. I am grateful to EO for the assistance and trust.
The FL was unlike some that have been described on this forum. The image was sharp almost to the edge; not quite as close to the edge as in Swarovski EL or Nikon SE, but sharp much closer to the edge than I had anticipated. The image was superbly sharp and contrasty, and color fidelity was exceptional. Brightness in deep shade was excellent.
None of those aspects of performance in the FL surpassed the Ultravid. In fact to my eyes the images in the two are so similar as to be indistinguishable. I was unable to get the FL to exhibit CA, but for that matter I was unable to get the Ultravid to do it while I was comparing them. The Ultravid exhibits very slight CA when viewing a bird against a backlit cloud. Those conditions did not exist at the time, so I could not say how the FL would perform under that difficult circumstance.
Viewing dark objects in shaded areas under the tent, both binoculars were identically bright. Making this comparison I stacked one binocular on top of the other so I could go back and forth between them rapidly. I tried several different subjects and in every case I could not discern a difference.
The Ultravid's field of view is technically 94% of that of the FL. In actual use I could not detect a practical difference. At all viewing distances they seemed to have nearly an identical field of view.
The FL focuses closer, and this might be useful for viewing insects. I have never been in a situation with either my Ultravid or SE in which I could not focus on a bird.
The ergonomics of the two are dramatically different. We all know that handling is a personal matter, so keep in mind that I speak only for myself when I say that the Ultravid wins hands down. I was disappointed by the FL's handling. The focusing wheel is positioned such that I had to grip the binocular with the fleshy part of my palm against the strap lug in order to focus, and at that point the body tapers in so sharply that the hand is flexed inward. The ribbed body does not fit the hand comfortably, while the Ultravid matches the hand solidly. In fact the ribbed part of the body can hardly be gripped at all by the hand that is used to focus. The FL's handling was downright awkward to me. This is all the more surprising because the ergonomics of the Zeiss Victory are very good--in fact they are similar to the Ultravid's.
The focusing wheel of the FL was stiff. My Ultravid's was not stiff when I bought it, but it was rough. With use it has become smooth. I assume the FL's focus will loosen with use, but just as was the case with my Ultravid when it was new, I had to focus the FL using two fingers. The gearing of the FL's focus is slightly higher than the Ultravid's. I prefer the slower focus of the Ultravid, but I could easily adjust to the faster focus in the 7x42 FL.
That is not the case with the 8x42 FL, which was also on display and which I handled. The focus in it was very fast, and because it does not have the depth of focus of the 7x42, I found myself struggling with it. I did not like it and could not grow accustomed to it. Others might find it wonderful.
I believe one or more contributors to the forum have preferred the ergonomics of the FL to the Ultravid's. So let me conclude by saying that if you want an optically superlative binocular, you will get it with either the FL or the Ultravid, but you need to handle them before making a choice.
EO was exhibiting the new, lighter Nikon LX/HG. Wow. This is another binocular with superb ergonomics, but I never liked the weight. Optically it is unchanged, but the difference in weight is dramatic. Except for CA, which in the Nikon exceeds the Ultravid, this is an optically remarkable bin. I had not handled one since the day I bought my SE, and I had forgotten how wonderful it was. If I were shopping for an 8x42, I would consider it alongside the FL and Ultravid.