Zeiss Victory HT - is its high price really justified? (6 Viewers)

[Torview]

I may be wrong (if there's such things as right or wrong when it comes to opinions) but I'd rather put my money into an EDG or SV.

//L

You know what you like.........


Personally I could`nt live with any of the Swaro roofs I`v tried, I see a blue/purple fringe to every white object or highlight, I may be the only person in the World who see`s it but it would drive me nuts, does this make me wrong ?

If you see poor edges you see poor edges, whether anyone else agrees or not.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

I have used the 8x42 HT - nice binocular, no doubt, and I liked the handling of the focuser. Yet, I found the view of the binocular too narrow, it just didn't impress me much. Guess I am spoiled by the Nikon EII.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[ibramr]

I couldn't agree more, I have owned both the FL 8x32 and BN 8x32 some years ago, but switched to 7x42 FL (when I started to use glasses), at that time the 7x42 FL was the best I could find concerning view with glasses,
but the eye relief is still not 100% optimal for me.

Currently both nikon 8x32 EDG and Swaro 8x32 is as good in that aspect (eye relief) in my opinion, both also has a larger field of view than the 8x42:s.

Please do not lough....the 100% optimal eye relief for me is only offered by the Leica BN 8x32. It is perfect. No other pair from another maker comes close to it except the Ultravid (the 8x32 and 8x42) and the New Trinovid (8x42). The HT is better than the FL, but as you say, not 100% optimal.

And thank you for your comment regarding the Conquest. I tried hard to like it, specifically, the 8x42 model, but could not. Eye placing was ultra critical for me to avoid black outs for an optimum view. With all due respect to the popularity of this model, and to my admiration to the Zeiss FL models I have, for me, this model was not in the league. I understand that Conquest 8x32 is better, but did not try it yet.

Once more, thank you very much.

 

[Sagittarius]

I was a Swarovski fan since buying my first pair in 1989 but 2013 was the year I decided to upgrade to a new pair.
I assumed I would end up with a 10x42 Swarovision but started reading reports of the (then) new Zeiss Victory HT online and on youtube videos.

I had looked through a few Swarovision models and knew they were superb but could not (at the time) locate a pair of HT's to try.
On blind faith alone, I decided to order the 10x42 HT's from Eagle Optics knowing I could return them and get the Swarovisions if I wasn't impressed.
Since opening the box when they first arrived to this day, I haven't regretted my decision to order them one bit.
The view, handling comfort, and construction are all topnotch. :t:

I still love the Swarovision but now I'm a new Zeiss convert.
Actually, I rate the HT's a best buy among the big 3 because they're lower priced than comparable 10x42's from Swarovski and Leica and (at least on paper) have the best warranty.
For anyone considering an HT, don't stop short, save until you have the money to purchase them!
They are worth every penny in my book.
My next binocular will be another HT!

 

[curvecrazy]

WOW what a spectacular view through the HTs. Bright, sharp, vivid with clarity and contrast that I found truly amazing. Truly an immersive and IMHO very impressive view. In this price range, one always reads of the law of diminishing returns and having to spend a lot more money for only tiny incremental improvements. Clearly the Zeiss Victory HT shows you exactly what your extra funds buy.

You wrote this. So it seems to me the answer to your question would be yes. Ask yourself this, are you going to get to live again?

THIS IS YOUR LIFE!

Alright then. Buy it. Use it. Enjoy the hell out of it.

Next........................................................................

 

[pompadour]

Holger, you might mention from time to time that your main interest in using a bin is the heavens, not the humble feathered objects most of us here like to view!

Ibramr, from the posts above seems your prescription glasses are for short sight - may I know if that's right, and if so its measure in dioptres? Most users wearing specs for short sight find the Leica Ultravid 8x32 unusually difficult to use, while you have the opp. experience. Thanks - v. relevant to me!

 

[absolut_beethoven]

...Thanks for the review of the new Trinovid. I think I may be the only
person who owns one on BF. ...

IMHO I think that the new Leica Trinovid is a very underrated bino. It has no major flaws, does everything reasonably well and has a very easy and relaxing view that one can enjoy for hours with no eyestrain.

Its major problems are lack of marketing from Leica, plus I believe that it's priced a little too high relative to the same offerings from the Zeiss Conquest HD - brighter, but more CA and a less relaxing view - and the new Meopta/Cabelas Euro HD - also brighter, but less comfortable eyecups and fit and finish not quite up to the Trinovid quality. Coupled with the fact that it's actually better than their more expensive Ultravids in a few areas.

If Leica wants to remain in the game then they ought to upgrade the Ultravids, lower the price of Trinovids and greatly improve their customer service here in the USA. Relying on their past achievements by sitting on their laurels definitely won't save them.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

This may be unwarranted and ignorant, but it's my opinion.
I have looked through the 10x42 at two occasions and immediately disliked it. Granted, if I could play with it for some time, a bond would form and I would appreciate the virtues it certainly must have, judging from everybody's praise.

In my opinion, such a lousy edge sharpness is unacceptable at that price level.
It is indeed bright, but so is the SV, which is also nearly perfectly colour neutral.
For me, the HT is a turbo-charged FL with all that comes with it, pros as well as cons.
These are my two cents and I have nothing to add to defend my opinion.
I may be wrong (if there's such things as right or wrong when it comes to opinions) but I'd rather put my money into an EDG or SV.

//L

Most 10X magnification binos tend to have smaller sweet spots and more flaws and distortions than their smaller 8X counterparts. The only two 10X binos that I've checked out and would be happy to own in the long term is the Meopta 10X42 Euro HD and the aforementioned Leica Trinovid.

Sure the Zeiss 8x42 HT wasn't sharp to the edge like my old Nikon 8x32 EDG, but it does have a very large sweet spot and sharpness drops off less and more gradually compared to the Zeiss 8x32 FL that I recently reviewed.

The bottom line is that it didn't bother me at all, but if it's an issue for you then I would recommend either the Swarovision, which doesn't work for me due to its RB distortion, or the Nikon EDG, while not the brightest or the sharpest, has the least distracting distortion of any bino that I've checked out to date.

 

[ibramr]

......Ibramr, from the posts above seems your prescription glasses are for short sight - may I know if that's right, and if so its measure in dioptres? Most users wearing specs for short sight find the Leica Ultravid 8x32 unusually difficult to use, while you have the opp. experience. Thanks - v. relevant to me!

Greetings. You are right--I am myopic. The diopters measure around -6.25 with little difference between the right and the left. It is important also to mention that I use rimless frames that allow the eye relief distance between the eyes and the prescription lenses to be very close. As mentioned earlier above, I have found the eye relief for the BN 8x32 and the BA 10x32 that I own to be perfect. This is also the case when I tested the UVs (8x32 and 8x42) and the new Trinovid (8x42). Regrettably, the Leica line can not be used without my glasses on at all times.

I also own Zeiss FL 8x32 and 7x42. For optimum results, eyecups for both have to be one notch up. Not as comfortable as the Leica, but then I can use them with and without glasses; this is a feature that I started to value more in the last few years. The HT is very similar to the FL and so are the two Swarovskis I have tested recently. Best regards.

 

[BLAZE56]

i recently purchased a new SLC 8x42 for 1599.99$
is the 8x42 HT worth the added cost?
the new SLC is practically flawless

 

[ibramr]

i recently purchased a new SLC 8x42 for 1599.99$
is the 8x42 HT worth the added cost?
the new SLC is practically flawless

Kindly help the discussion more by elaborating on your experience with this new model. Many thanks.

 

[james holdsworth]

i recently purchased a new SLC 8x42 for 1599.99$
is the 8x42 HT worth the added cost?
the new SLC is practically flawless

You would need to compare the two side-by-side to see any useful differences - both are very good and both have individual attributes, so personal preference would be the decider. [I have the HT and have used the SLC-HD for a few hours]

My take - HT better for CA, stray light, brightness, low / poor light contrast
SLC-HD better for sweet-spot size, daylight contrast

 

[lmans66]

i recently purchased a new SLC 8x42 for 1599.99$
is the 8x42 HT worth the added cost?
the new SLC is practically flawless

Like James...I have compared the two side by side..... For me, my eyes, my birding situation...the HT was a better buy. Of course when I compared the two, the SLC was not $1599, as that price has been reduced to bring in the new version.

But, only you can answer your question. You can convince yourself now without doing any field tests that the SLC is better or you can compare. Come in ahead of time with a listing of features you will be testing, and compare the two.

Bottom line is that it appears you have already purchased a SLC so it would appear in your case that 'no'...it wouldn't be worth it to exchange now for a HT as you already have a pair of super binos! jim

 

[A2GG]

Bottom line is that it appears you have already purchased a SLC so it would appear in your case that 'no'...it wouldn't be worth it to exchange now for a HT as you already have a pair of super binos! jim

I agree with Jim. If you find the SLC near flawless then there shouldn't be a need at this point to continue looking at other models. It sounds like it's a very good fit for you and you really love it. Why take a chance on something else when you're so satisfied with what you already have. Just my 2 cents and hope you don't mind me saying.

 

[typo]

i recently purchased a new SLC 8x42 for 1599.99$
is the 8x42 HT worth the added cost?
the new SLC is practically flawless

I've also compared the HT and the SLC a couple of times and thought they were both excellent. In the time I've had with them the only clear differentiator I found was a less than smooth focus on one of the SLCs. If yours is fine I'd see no cause to switch.

David

 

[mulligatawny owl]

I owned an SLC HD 8x42 and now own a Conquest HD 8x42, on view alone I easily prefer the Conquest, to me they are sharper and crisper, maybe I have a cherry sample, but these things are razor sharp! I'm frankly amazed by how good the Conquest HD line is. The 8x32 HD I owned was almost as good a view as my beloved Nikon SE's, the 8x42 HD is, dare I say it better. So, this begs the question how much more would I love the HT's? Can I justify double the price of the HD's I ask myself when to my eyes the Conquest HD's are already pure alpha. Hmmm.

 

[perterra]

I owned an SLC HD 8x42 and now own a Conquest HD 8x42, on view alone I easily prefer the Conquest, to me they are sharper and crisper, maybe I have a cherry sample, but these things are razor sharp! I'm frankly amazed by how good the Conquest HD line is. The 8x32 HD I owned was almost as good a view as my beloved Nikon SE's, the 8x42 HD is, dare I say it better. So, this begs the question how much more would I love the HT's? Can I justify double the price of the HD's I ask myself when to my eyes the Conquest HD's are already pure alpha. Hmmm.

I have to agree, I got a really good deal on the Conquest HD and they are impressive, they achieve far above their pay grade

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Holger, you might mention from time to time that your main interest in using a bin is the heavens, not the humble feathered objects most of us here like to view!

Yes, kind of - though I use binoculars during daytime as well and still have the feeling that the 8x42 HT appears somewhat narrow.

Let me summarize it this way: The 8x42 HT is state of the art and of leading technology in almost all aspects - apart from field of view and edge-sharpness. In other words: It is getting time to invest into improved eyepiece designs, now that the CA is well controlled (Fl-objectives) and brightness/contrast are at their maximum (HT-prisms, perfect stray-light control). This would be the direction leading toward perfection ...

Cheers,
Holger

 

[NDhunter]

Holger:

You have now opened yourself up a bit, and many here are aware of
the design decisions of the top makers.
Some mfrs. have advanced the eyepiece design to accommodate better edges
and that is well known.
Tell us more about how you regard the top binoculars that are on
the market today ?
I do assume you have tried them all.

Jerry

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Holger:

You have now opened yourself up a bit, and many here are aware of
the design decisions of the top makers.
Some mfrs. have advanced the eyepiece design to accommodate better edges
and that is well known.
Tell us more about how you regard the top binoculars that are on
the market today ?
I do assume you have tried them all.

Jerry

Oh, well, if all that were so clear to me, then I would probably start writing my next book about "future strategies for better binoculars - a manufacturer's guideline"

I have used the 8x42 HT over a short time, and I had a current Swarovski 8.5x42 SV for comparison. I preferred the handling of the Zeiss, but the wider apparent field of the Swaro left me in doubt about whether or not I would be able to really like the Zeiss. This doesn't mean that I regard the Swaro wide enough, of course. Swaro could still improve on the focuser, here the Zeiss appeared comparably more precise. These binoculars are great, but I want more field before I really invest that much money into optics.

Cheers,
Holger