New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (3 Viewers)

[Uhu74]

Hello Gijs,

A flat field remedies field curvature. Pincushion distortion is another matter. It is frequently added to a binocular to overcome the rolling ball effect, when panning.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Hi Arthur,

Maybe I'm mixing up 2 things here, but what I meant is, when someone moves a straight object towards the periphery of the binos' FOV, straight objects seem to curve/bend. AFAIK that's called pincusion distortion? That indeed is sometimes done "on purpose" to decrease the feared RB effect. For my feeling, it was more prominently visible in the SF than it was in the SV.
The SF was pretty sharp up to the edge though, the edges were only a little bit softer in the SF compared to the SV.
And when a bino has got no field curvature, that means it is sharp over the entire FOV. Is that what you mean|=)|

Kind regards,

Gijs

 

[Pinewood]

Hi Arthur,

Maybe I'm mixing up 2 things here, but what I meant is, when someone moves a straight object towards the periphery of the binos' FOV, straight objects seem to curve/bend. AFAIK that's called pincusion distortion? That indeed is sometimes done "on purpose" to decrease the feared RB effect. For my feeling, it was more prominently visible in the SF than it was in the SV.
The SF was pretty sharp up to the edge though, the edges were only a little bit softer in the SF compared to the SV.
And when a bino has got no field curvature, that means it is sharp over the entire FOV. Is that what you mean|=)|

Kind regards,

Gijs

Dear Gijs,

Exactly.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Uhu74]

Gijs,

I think it's unfortunate that people have to mention RB on every thread when it only affects 5% of the population. Majority Rules! Just bustin' Jerry's chops.

He does make a point, though. Only on a bin forum frequented by "optics nuts" would you find such an esoteric topic being discussed. But that's what we "nuts" like to do - crack open, examine and give our opinions on what we've found.

The SF has revived interest in this topic because it was designed purposely with enough pincushion to counteract RB for most users (but not for all, as we have found out). This is not just theoretical, below is a link to Holger's report on distortion in the SF and his comparison of it with the SV EL and other bins.

You'll notice that the 8.5x and 10x42 SV EL are way at the bottom of the chart, meaning they have the least distortion of all the binoculars in the test, and therefore those susceptible to seeing RB (which, from reading these forums, is a lot more than 5%) are more likely to see it in those two model SV ELs than the 8x32, 10x50 or 12x50 SV ELs, and more likely to see it in the 8.5x model than the 10x42. For those who are very sensitive to RB, they are more likely to see it in the 8x42 SF than the 10x42 SF, because the 10x42 has a bit more distortion.

Of course, most people who see RB quickly or more slowly adapt to it, but at least they know what the not-so-silent minority is talking about.

Who said they see RB in the SF and not in the SV EL, and what model SV EL were they referring to? From Holger's chart, it appears the 8x32 model has the most distortion of the line.

Here's Holger's report and chart:

Distortion of the new Zeiss Victory SF: A paradigmatic shift on the binocular market?

Someone else reported getting a "wonky" focuser on his SF, which I think he returned, however, it seems to be the exception to the rule. Zeiss focusers are usually smooth turning. OTOH, for Swaros, the exceptions to the rule are focusers that turn smoothly in both directions right out of the box. The question is whether or not the owner can or wants to live with a less than smooth focuser. Just like RB, even among those who see it and can't adapt, there are some who can live with it. Ditto for Swaro focusers, not everyone who has a Swaro focuser that turns harder in one direction or is a bit "sticky" is going to be bothered by it.

I do a lot of close-in birding where frequent and quick focusing is required, so that's why I prefer a smooth but not too fast focuser.

Yes, the "best" binoculars are those that are best suited for the user's eyes, hands, tastes, and wallet.

Brock

Brock, your post regarding Holgers' distortion chart shows exactly how I experienced the different distortion levels between SF and SV|=)|
I have to admit, I didn't have an SV beside the SF when I tested it, it was "all in the head", I do know very well how my 2SV images looks like, because I use them every dayo
I don't recall where, but I did read a post on this forum where someone was stating he saw more RB in the SF than in the SV. I'll see if I can find that post.

All the best,

Gijs

 

[Uhu74]

Dear Gijs,

Exactly.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

:t:

Thanks Arthur|=)|

 

[BruceH]

Today I tried a 10x42SF at my local optics store, and I thought, why not share my findings here?

It's my personal opinion, so please don't shoot me for it.
First impression, it is very light! About the looks, that's not really my cup of tea. The grey color looks very cheap, and I wonder how they will look after a couple of years of field use....
Ergonomically I think it's very nice. Holds comfortable, and gives a nice relaxed, easy view.

Optics:
The SF provides a nice image, sharp, bright, nice contrast, wide FOV, but it has a bit softer edges than an SV.
CA is very well controlled. Colors seemed to be at the colder side compared to an SV, more clinic, and a bit "emotionless"
What immediately caught my attention, the field seems not very flat! It has a fair amount of pincusion distortion, in such a way I wouldn't actually consider it a flat field.
When panning across the bell tower of the church, I could actually see it "bending". The SV also shows a bit of pincusion distortion, but this seems to be a lot less than the SF. Too bad I didn't have a SV next to it, I'll try to do a side by side comparison as well.
This makes me wonder about some people who find the SF to have more RB effect than the SV. Theoretically the SV should have more RB effect because of the apparent flatter field, but I'm no expert regarding to this, so I could be wrong here.

Another thing what caught my attention, I wouldn't say the "S" in "SmartFocus" of this particular sample is standing for "smart", but something else...... Uneven feel with some heavier turning spots when focusing, and not smooth at all. It likely is exemplary for this sample, but you see it's not Swarovski onky, but happens with other brands too.

Conclusion, Very nice bin without a doubt, I can understand that people are falling for it, but it's not my personal taste.
It should be considered the opponent of the SV, but to me they actually are 2 rather different binoculars. It all comes down to a matter of taste.There are no "best binoculars", it's about which one suits a person best.

Cheers,

Gijs

Gijs .... It is good to hear comments from others and then compare to one's own experiences. Looks like you and I are in general agreement in comparing these two top line binoculars (the Zeiss SF and Swaro SV). I would just like to add to some of the things you mentioned based on my experiences with the 10X42 SF over the last month or so.

The gray color has not been a problem with showing dirt or grime. I have a Bushnell Elite 10X43 which was my primary binocular for about 5 years. It is two tone gray in color and it still looks great. I doubt there will be any issues with the SF. I did get some dirt on the barrels from an old log that it was resting on, but it wiped right off. As far as looks, I was neutral about that when it first came out, but I am liking it more over time. My thoughts were the same when I first saw Swaro green, but now my favorite looking Swaro is the prior SLC HD 42mm. Zeiss is also using gray in the new Terra 32mm so that may be a trend for the brand. There are some photos on the Forum showing some prior Zeiss models with gray bodies. I admit to a bias toward gray since I nominated the Bushnell Elite 10X43 in the best looking binocular thread.

The initial favorable impression you had with the weight and balance just gets better after using it for a few days in real life viewing. It seems to make it easier to hold on a subject longer and it seems to make it easier to control the shake of a 10X better. These are just subjective opinions since I have not tried to quantify it in any way.

Pin cushion in the SV 10X42 is very slight but as you said, there is some. The SF has a little more when comparing side by side. Where you said a fair amount, I would say a small amount. I believe that was a trade-off the SF designers made to reduce rolling ball. I have compared the 10X42 SF to some of my other binoculars and the pin cushion is much greater in some of them, such as the Zen-Ray ED3 10X42.

I do not see rolling ball in the SF 10X42 or the SV 10X42. However two other experienced folks viewing with me that are extremely sensitive to rolling ball saw it in both. It was not an issue for them with the SF but it was an issue with the SV. My experience goes along with Brocks comments. I do not see it in the 10X42 SF and SV, the Nikon EDG line, and the SV 12X50. I do see it under certain viewing conditions in the SV 8X32. I saw it in the pre-production version of the SF 8X42 but not to the point that it was an issue. I saw it in samples of the SV 8.5X42 a couple of years ago to the point that it would be an issue.

There are claims that the Swaro EL, the Zeiss SF and the Nikon EDG are sharp all the way the edge. They come close, but I do not think any are sharp all the way to the edge. I agree the Swaro comes the closest, but all are excellent. I doubt the small differences would be a factor for many. The larger field of view of the SF helps make up for the difference.

The unevern feel of the focus may be the result of a newly issued unit that needs to be broken in. Mine had a small amount of unven feel right out of the box but that has gone away with use. There is still a very slight amount near the close focus end but I spend little time there so even that small amount of uneven feel may improve over time. Overall I find the focus on mine to be excellent and I seem to lock onto a sharp focus faster with it than any of my other binoculars. I have compared mine to one other recent production SF 10X42 and the focus feel is consistent with mine.

All said and done, I prefer the SF, but the SV is one of the best so I completely understand why it suits you best. I hope you continue to enjoy your new 10X50 SV!

 

[Uhu74]

Gijs .... It is good to hear comments from others and then compare to one's own experiences. Looks like you and I are in general agreement in comparing these two top line binoculars (the Zeiss SF and Swaro SV). I would just like to add to some of the things you mentioned based on my experiences with the 10X42 SF over the last month or so.

The gray color has not been a problem with showing dirt or grime. I have a Bushnell Elite 10X43 which was my primary binocular for about 5 years. It is two tone gray in color and it still looks great. I doubt there will be any issues with the SF. I did get some dirt on the barrels from an old log that it was resting on, but it wiped right off. As far as looks, I was neutral about that when it first came out, but I am liking it more over time. My thoughts were the same when I first saw Swaro green, but now my favorite looking Swaro is the prior SLC HD 42mm. Zeiss is also using gray in the new Terra 32mm so that may be a trend for the brand. There are some photos on the Forum showing some prior Zeiss models with gray bodies. I admit to a bias toward gray since I nominated the Bushnell Elite 10X43 in the best looking binocular thread.

The initial favorable impression you had with the weight and balance just gets better after using it for a few days in real life viewing. It seems to make it easier to hold on a subject longer and it seems to make it easier to control the shake of a 10X better. These are just subjective opinions since I have not tried to quantify it in any way.

Pin cushion in the SV 10X42 is very slight but as you said, there is some. The SF has a little more when comparing side by side. Where you said a fair amount, I would say a small amount. I believe that was a trade-off the SF designers made to reduce rolling ball. I have compared the 10X42 SF to some of my other binoculars and the pin cushion is much greater in some of them, such as the Zen-Ray ED3 10X42.

I do not see rolling ball in the SF 10X42 or the SV 10X42. However two other experienced folks viewing with me that are extremely sensitive to rolling ball saw it in both. It was not an issue for them with the SF but it was an issue with the SV. My experience goes along with Brocks comments. I do not see it in the 10X42 SF and SV, the Nikon EDG line, and the SV 12X50. I do see it under certain viewing conditions in the SV 8X32. I saw it in the pre-production version of the SF 8X42 but not to the point that it was an issue. I saw it in samples of the SV 8.5X42 a couple of years ago to the point that it would be an issue.

There are claims that the Swaro EL, the Zeiss SF and the Nikon EDG are sharp all the way the edge. They come close, but I do not think any are sharp all the way to the edge. I agree the Swaro comes the closest, but all are excellent. I doubt the small differences would be a factor for many. The larger field of view of the SF helps make up for the difference.

The unevern feel of the focus may be the result of a newly issued unit that needs to be broken in. Mine had a small amount of unven feel right out of the box but that has gone away with use. There is still a very slight amount near the close focus end but I spend little time there so even that small amount of uneven feel may improve over time. Overall I find the focus on mine to be excellent and I seem to lock onto a sharp focus faster with it than any of my other binoculars. I have compared mine to one other recent production SF 10X42 and the focus feel is consistent with mine.

All said and done, I prefer the SF, but the SV is one of the best so I completely understand why it suits you best. I hope you continue to enjoy your new 10X50 SV!

Hi Bruce,

Too bad I did not have an SV next to it, that might have changed my opinion in some ways|=)|
About the colors rendition, it was a bit of a dull day, so not the most perfect condition to test a binocular. The WOW effect is a lot more pronounced on a bright day.
After coming home I tested the SV for pincusion distortion, and it also shows it in a bit lesser way. I agree, my statement of a "fair" amount is maybe a bit rash. Looks like the cone shaped bell tower also enhanced the effect of the distortion.
And sharp to the edges, no complaints there. An SV also has a tiny soft ring around the image.
About the focuser, the sample I tried was brand spanking new, so maybe it will break in in time.
I really appreciate your reply, as a user who has experienced both bins for a longer time, the real life differences in between them are becoming more clear.
I'm sure when I should have bought an SF instead of an SV (but I don't have a 42mm bin anymore|=)|) I would have been perfectly happy with it:t:
Bins will grow on you when you start using them. I guess I have developed Swaro-vision during the last 2 years:-O
Zeiss SF...... Very nice bin. Wish I had one, I still have space in my cupboard ...

All the best,

Gijs

 

[BruceH]

Hi Bruce,

.........
I really appreciate your reply, as a user who has experienced both bins for a longer time, the real life differences in between them are becoming more clear. ..............
Gijs

Gijs ..... Thanks!

I enjoyed reading your post discussing the recent purchase of the 10X50SV EL.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=306443

I hope you go back to it in a month or so and update it with anything new you have learned about your new Swaro after spending more time with it. I suspect you find things that you will appreciate even more than you do now.

 

[HighNorth]

I agree the Swaro comes the closest, but all are excellent. I doubt the small differences would be a factor for many. The larger field of view of the SF helps make up for the difference.

Not to mention that towards the edge of the field, you start running into significant lateral CA. :smoke:

 

[thenriques]

Hey people,

This is my first post in this forum, even though I read a lot of posts here. I'm writing from Portugal, and I've considered buying the SF 10x42 for a while. Most of the useful info I could find was here. So, after going through every post in this thread, I have to say that very few of them are useful to someone who is considering these...

I have finally decided to order them and they arrived yesterday. You can imagine I was pretty excited to look through them for the first time. So imagine my disappointment when I found a spot on the left barrel and found that the speck of dust was inside the barrel... I could not believe it, so I thoroughly cleaned the lenses with the microfiber cloth that came with the binoculars, but the spot was always there. The grain is especially visible when looking at the binoculars from the front.

I've read a few posts here complaining about mistakes like the size of the lens caps (mine were fine), but I was not expecting this. It's hard to understand how such a thing passes quality control, given the care and attention they that Zeiss say they put into each pair of binoculars... Anyway, I'm keeping them for a few days until the store gets a new pair, which is nice... I hope the new ones will be fine.

Anyway, aside from the defect, I'm pretty happy with my choice. They're truly great to use. I wasn't sure the 10x would be the best choice, but I think I made the right decision. I'll post an update when I get the new pair.

 

[james holdsworth]

Hey people,

This is my first post in this forum, even though I read a lot of posts here. I'm writing from Portugal, and I've considered buying the SF 10x42 for a while. Most of the useful info I could find was here. So, after going through every post in this thread, I have to say that very few of them are useful to someone who is considering these...

I have finally decided to order them and they arrived yesterday. You can imagine I was pretty excited to look through them for the first time. So imagine my disappointment when I found a spot on the left barrel and found that the speck of dust was inside the barrel... I could not believe it, so I thoroughly cleaned the lenses with the microfiber cloth that came with the binoculars, but the spot was always there. The grain is especially visible when looking at the binoculars from the front.

I've read a few posts here complaining about mistakes like the size of the lens caps (mine were fine), but I was not expecting this. It's hard to understand how such a thing passes quality control, given the care and attention they that Zeiss say they put into each pair of binoculars... Anyway, I'm keeping them for a few days until the store gets a new pair, which is nice... I hope the new ones will be fine.

Anyway, aside from the defect, I'm pretty happy with my choice. They're truly great to use. I wasn't sure the 10x would be the best choice, but I think I made the right decision. I'll post an update when I get the new pair.

**sigh**

Hey, Zeiss, is it really that difficult to actually look through the product you intend to charge $3000 before they go out the door?

I'm sorry, but dirt and debris in the optical system [at this level] is a total fail.

 

[brocknroller]

Hey people,

This is my first post in this forum, even though I read a lot of posts here. I'm writing from Portugal, and I've considered buying the SF 10x42 for a while. Most of the useful info I could find was here. So, after going through every post in this thread, I have to say that very few of them are useful to someone who is considering these...

I have finally decided to order them and they arrived yesterday. You can imagine I was pretty excited to look through them for the first time. So imagine my disappointment when I found a spot on the left barrel and found that the speck of dust was inside the barrel... I could not believe it, so I thoroughly cleaned the lenses with the microfiber cloth that came with the binoculars, but the spot was always there. The grain is especially visible when looking at the binoculars from the front.

I've read a few posts here complaining about mistakes like the size of the lens caps (mine were fine), but I was not expecting this. It's hard to understand how such a thing passes quality control, given the care and attention they that Zeiss say they put into each pair of binoculars... Anyway, I'm keeping them for a few days until the store gets a new pair, which is nice... I hope the new ones will be fine.

Anyway, aside from the defect, I'm pretty happy with my choice. They're truly great to use. I wasn't sure the 10x would be the best choice, but I think I made the right decision. I'll post an update when I get the new pair.

Hey, hey, thenriques

Sorry to hear about that, this is actually the second SF reported with this problem. High North dropped his first sample 8x42 SF onto a concrete floor and the front hinge cracked so he sent it to Zeiss for repairs. They sent him a new unit, but it had a spot inside one barrel, which turned out to be dust imbedded between the lenses. He sent it back, and the third time was the charm.

Good Luck! with the second pair and don't drop it on a concrete floor or you might get another spotty pair.

nowgonzalas

 

[Troubador]

I can only agree, for goodness sake, turn the lights on in Wetzlar please.

Lee

 

[winwinbino]

Hey people,

This is my first post in this forum, even though I read a lot of posts here. I'm writing from Portugal, and I've considered buying the SF 10x42 for a while. Most of the useful info I could find was here. So, after going through every post in this thread, I have to say that very few of them are useful to someone who is considering these...

I have finally decided to order them and they arrived yesterday. You can imagine I was pretty excited to look through them for the first time. So imagine my disappointment when I found a spot on the left barrel and found that the speck of dust was inside the barrel... I could not believe it, so I thoroughly cleaned the lenses with the microfiber cloth that came with the binoculars, but the spot was always there. The grain is especially visible when looking at the binoculars from the front.

I've read a few posts here complaining about mistakes like the size of the lens caps (mine were fine), but I was not expecting this. It's hard to understand how such a thing passes quality control, given the care and attention they that Zeiss say they put into each pair of binoculars... Anyway, I'm keeping them for a few days until the store gets a new pair, which is nice... I hope the new ones will be fine.

Anyway, aside from the defect, I'm pretty happy with my choice. They're truly great to use. I wasn't sure the 10x would be the best choice, but I think I made the right decision. I'll post an update when I get the new pair.

It didn't surpise me at all. My experience told that Zeiss had the worst internal dust problem among alphas. I own/owned six of them. Conquest HD being the best (because of mostly Japanese work ???). I didn't return any of them since those dusts didn't bother the view and No.2 I ordered from overseas.

It is ridiculous that people paying US$2000+ but get an inappropriate QC bins.

Advice : Never inspection a Zeiss bins using flashlight.

 

[SivaL]

Binomania has a good comparison of SF, SV and UV+ and likes the SF better. He calls SF "the king of birdwatching".

http://www.binomania.it/recensione-zeiss-victory-sf-il-re-del-birdwatching/

The page has a translate option that supports many languages.

 

[[email protected]]

Hey people,

This is my first post in this forum, even though I read a lot of posts here. I'm writing from Portugal, and I've considered buying the SF 10x42 for a while. Most of the useful info I could find was here. So, after going through every post in this thread, I have to say that very few of them are useful to someone who is considering these...

I have finally decided to order them and they arrived yesterday. You can imagine I was pretty excited to look through them for the first time. So imagine my disappointment when I found a spot on the left barrel and found that the speck of dust was inside the barrel... I could not believe it, so I thoroughly cleaned the lenses with the microfiber cloth that came with the binoculars, but the spot was always there. The grain is especially visible when looking at the binoculars from the front.

I've read a few posts here complaining about mistakes like the size of the lens caps (mine were fine), but I was not expecting this. It's hard to understand how such a thing passes quality control, given the care and attention they that Zeiss say they put into each pair of binoculars... Anyway, I'm keeping them for a few days until the store gets a new pair, which is nice... I hope the new ones will be fine.

Anyway, aside from the defect, I'm pretty happy with my choice. They're truly great to use. I wasn't sure the 10x would be the best choice, but I think I made the right decision. I'll post an update when I get the new pair.

I wouldn't worry about a little speck inside the tubes unless you can see it when you look through the binoculars. Just go birding and use them.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=309044

 

[perterra]

Binomania has a good comparison of SF, SV and UV+ and likes the SF better. He calls SF "the king of birdwatching".

http://www.binomania.it/recensione-zeiss-victory-sf-il-re-del-birdwatching/

The page has a translate option that supports many languages.

Hmmmmmm!

 

[brocknroller]

Binomania has a good comparison of SF, SV and UV+ and likes the SF better. He calls SF "the king of birdwatching".

http://www.binomania.it/recensione-zeiss-victory-sf-il-re-del-birdwatching/

The page has a translate option that supports many languages.

Given its huge size, perhaps that was a mistranslation and what he actually wrote was "the king-sized bed of birdwatching." :smoke:

<B>

 

[[email protected]]

Given its huge size, perhaps that was a mistranslation and what he actually wrote was "the king-sized bed of birdwatching." :smoke:

<B>

HaHaHa. Funny! The Zeiss SF 10x42 looks like a giant next to the Swarovski SV 10x42. I bet the Swarovski 10x50 SV isn't any bigger than that huge Zeiss SF 10x42. The 10x42 Zeiss SF is almost as big as the Swarovski 10x50 SV. The Zeiss SF 10x42 is 6.8x4.9 inches and the Swarovski 10x50 is 6.8x5.3 inches and you can buy the big Swaro for less money. That seems like a no brainer to me. The 10x50 SV is a gorgeous view.

 

[[email protected]]

Hmmmmmm!

Is Binomania related to the Binostore that sells Zeiss SF?

 

[Troubador]

I bet the Swarovski 10x50 SV isn't any bigger than that huge Zeiss SF 10x42.

The Zeiss SF 10x42 is 6.8 x 4.9 inches
the Swarovski 10x50 is 6.8 x 5.3 inches

Poor Dennis, feeling all upset and threatened by a review that put SF at the top of the ladder. You just have to try and hit back don't you?

You lost your bet on the dimensions according to your own information, as if the choice of binoculars is decided in such a childish fashion:clap:

Lee